Gender Diversity
Today is International Women’s Day and I thought I would recognize it by writing about gender diversity, a challenging topic for many in the startup/tech sector.
I believe that diversity of all kinds results in better companies, better performance, better culture and better workplaces. It is challenging for many small tech companies to build diverse teams, particularly in the early stages of their development when they are hiring for very specific skills. But the longer you wait to build a diverse team, the harder it gets. Scott Heiferman, Founder and CEO of our portfolio company Meetup, which has women running both product and engineering, explained to our CEO Summit a couple years ago that once you have a male-heavy team, it becomes very difficult to recruit women to join it. His advice was to build diversity into your hiring from the very start.
In addition to Meetup, I work with a few companies that have done this incredibly well. Etsy reported in their diversity report last year that:
people who identify as women comprise roughly 54% of our staff (compared to 51% in 2014), which makes us an outlier among tech companies in the U.S. and NYC where we are headquartered. Women managers increased by 14%, (to roughly 50% from 44%) and women in leadership roles increased by 35% (to 50% from 37%), which means people who identify as women comprise half of the leadership and management positions at Etsy. As of today, a third of our board of directors are women, and if the directors nominated for election at our annual meeting of stockholders are elected, half of our board of directors will be women. Roughly one-third of our technical roles are held by women or people with gender identities other than male.
Kickstarter reported in their recent PBC report that:
As of December 31, 2016, our team was majority women (53%), as was 61% of our Senior Team and half of our Executive Team.
I am sure there are other USV portfolio companies with similar statistics, but these are ones with which I am intimately familiar.
This kind of gender diversity does not happen unless your company makes it a priority in hiring, retention, and culture. It takes a comprehensive approach and it is not easy, particularly if you have a highly technical team.
Little things matter a lot. Having a separate bathroom for people who identify as women is an example of something that many very small companies don’t do/can’t do. But it sends a pretty loud signal.
Then there are the big things. What is your parental leave policy? What is covered in your healthcare policy? Do you give time off for things that matter to women, like today’s A Day Without Women?
You can take that extra step, go that extra mile, to let the women in your company (and the women you want to join it) know that you support them and you are committed to the fight for gender equality. There are many fights to fight, especially at this time, but women make up half of the global population, half of our workforce, and so women’s rights are an important cause that you can and should get behind.
This is a place where strong leadership in HR makes a difference. The commitment has to start at the top with the founder and CEO, but having a strong leader in HR who is in tune with gender (and all) diversity and can advise on and implement the right policies will make a huge difference.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the lack of gender (and all) diversity in the partner team at USV. We have gender diversity in our firm (we have four women on our investment team who shape our investment strategy), but the five partners at USV are all white middle aged men. As Andy and I mentioned on stage at the Upfront Summit this year, we are well aware of this issue and are actively working to address it.
So we can all use today’s International Women’s Day as an opportunity to commit/recommit ourselves to diversity in our companies and to take and sustain the actions that will lead to diversity. It’s important and, as some leading companies have shown, it is very much possible to do it.
Comments (Archived):
Amen! There is a great opinion piece in today’s FT on five steps “in which male leaders value praise and advance women in their professional lives” https://www.ft.com/content/… [paywall]
Definitely International. I’m in Paris and the radios in Ubers are all talking about that. More women in government would also send a strong message, like in Canada where 50% of the Trudeau government is women.
are you saying that there is a better gender balance within the startup world.i know for a fact that that is not true within the technical part of the gaming world. Or wasn’t till recently.
awaldstein:The way the women treated with misogyny within games is the direct reflection how they are treated on gaming blogs.http://www.patheos.com/blog…
i was referring to diversity within the programming community of the gaming community specifically.This is a different issue than market itself.I will state that the majority of salespeople i knew/know within the top tier gaming companies were most women. True in the US and Europe.
I think it is unethical to put someone in a job where they have little chance of success: see subtitle here, about Cabinet Minister Maryam Monsef: Dealt a Bad Hand, Played It Worse – http://www.macleans.ca/poli…What would really send a strong message is a budget – coming March 22nd, finally – that isn’t piling up a multi-generational amount of public debt.Symbolism is expensive and the only person who absolutely, materially benefits from the PM’s commitment to progressive symbolism…..is the PM.
Just to be clear– are you suggesting that a white male has an intentionally created disadvantage, due solely to his gender, when it comes to becoming USV’s next partner?
only if he is also middle-aged.
…and obese.
It’s also unclear what the reason for doing this is actually. Is it being done for PC reasons or because it is felt to provide a clear benefit to the business? Either is fine (pc is part of marketing). But the fact is the opinion of one person whatever their gender is really meaningless in a business context. Seat of the pants having one partner of a particular race means you have the bias of that one person and rely unfortunately to much on it I think. This is what I will call the “Al Gore” problem. Al Gore saw himself as a really smart guy so my feeling is he would be less likely to listen to a wide range of others when making a decision if he were to become President goes my theory. This applies to any profession which is more art than science (which Politics is). Science you want the smartest guy art you don’t.
pls read my post, “I believe that diversity of all kinds results in better companies, better performance, better culture and better workplaces” that should explain our reasoning as clearly as one can do it.
Sure I read that obviously. But the fact that you have not done it to date is why I said what I said. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that you think that now. I think that you do. But I also think that to a large extent peer pressure or public pressure is driving some of the decisions or at least the time table.
Per my comments above. You are asking the obvious (but politically incorrect question) – why pursue diversity for it’s own sake unless it produces a better result?And then there is the NBA and NFL. Why aren’t women allowed to make millions of dollars for playing games on the same fields as men? (That is a Liberal head fake)
Easy to google – research proves diversity matters to business results: http://www.mckinsey.com/bus…
In really big companies.
In smaller companies it’s harder bc we often find people through our immediate network which can often reflect ourselves. But I have a company of close to 50 people and diversity was always important to us. Best candidate wins. However, if there were two people, and we could go either way, we would always choose the person who was least like any of the rest of us in some way. That has made us significantly stronger and smarter. It’s a biological fact that mono cultures are much more vulnerable to change. So i am going to strongly disagree with the big company theory.
The research is about big companies.
sorry andy. i’d let you borrow my skin if i could. tans very well, when i lived in florida i was about as dark as my avatar. though i’m indian, so not sure how many diversity points that’s worth.
When you say “indian” what do mean?The term ‘white’ I find to be very broad and not very informative.
meaning my parents were born and raised in india, and are of indian origin as far back as we know. i was born and raised in the USA.
It’s cool I can just identify as it now. Appreciate the offer though
I’ll raise you one.
I have decided that I identify as a black female VC that spotted airbnb, Snapchat and Google before they had their 900th user. Please pass the application.
andyswan:We assume no further inquiry to your blog entry is required.Is it more revealing or an experiment that shouldn’t have been. Don’t answer.
Absolutely
I wish I could transfer LikeFolio’s diversity points to USV. We are off the charts but don’t care about them at all.
I wonder if maybe you should care. Diversity in teams makes a stronger team by the very nature that is often brings multiple perspectives, experiences etc. It’s not just a white man thing (which i know you have a sensitivity to) but is about socio-economic, gender, geography, ethnicity etc. I sound like a broken record, but diverse ecosystems are stronger and that includes Teams. So great job LikeFolio. Hopefully it bodes you business well in the future.
“Diversity in teams makes a stronger team by the very nature that is often brings multiple perspectives, experiences etc.”Last I checked, Apple was the biggest company in the world and its senior leadership consisted of 9 white guys and 1 white woman.You see a similar lack of diversity at most of the top companies in the world.
Including….ummm…USV
Agreed. I wonder if they will be the biggest company in the world in the future? Oh also that main white guy was of Syrian dissent and parents were immigrants (#justsaying)
In related news: https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
fav thing with that is that it says the source is the Dept of Agriculture… I think i might want to double check those facts 😉
Almost all the research done on this topic is based on large companies.That’s an important caveat.
I can speak from direct personal experience of building a company from zero to >150 employees in around 4 years with no funding that we started as we meant to go on. All we cared about when hiring was – is the person talented and do we like them? We couldn’t care less about anything else – gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc. And this was around 30 years ago in what was then a more conservative culture in the UK. It worked out incredibly well. We had access to a pool of talent that other people treated badly and were rewarded by dedicated talented people and a great working environment. I look back on it very fondly and am amazed that so few people have yet to figure out that what really matters above all is talent, energy and not being an asshole.
I believe this is the most productive way to hire, in startups.Its the only agenda that leads to growth.
Yep. Talent and commitment are rocket fuel.
Not good Fred. What if you had never been hired by Euclid for the same reason? Life is made of lucky breaks, and as Arnold Palmer said (paraphrased) you make your own luck through hard work. You can’t work hard on your gender…
that’s your view, i respect it, but i obviously disagree with it.
As I respect yours.
I think this is missing the point.We are in a world in which women, for example, absolutely have had to work hard on their gender. They have had to learn to work in male dominated environments and be better to get the same respect. In my experience women are not afraid of making their own luck or working hard. All they want is access to anything like the same breaks.
fred, you should take this down, hr would kill you for this. reverse discrimination is a thing that is suable if they can prove it.
The way I read it two things matter here.a) Size of company (15 or 20 employees depending on the issue)b) This is not an employee position but a partner position.https://www.eeoc.gov/employ…So I would question if what you are talking about applies here at all.
He could argue legally that he is saying that a Team is disadvantaged if they don’t have diversity on their Team. That could go for any one particular race or group. Strong ecosystems are diverse and white men are just one example (it could be all purple men just to be cheeky about it.)
By some measures, Union Square Ventures is the top-performing venture capital firm in the world. They don’t appear to have been disadvantaged by the relative lack of diversity of their partners.
They are top-performing because they are always innovating and thinking what’s going to be important tomorrow vs. what made us great yesterday. What I’m hearing is that Fred believes that this is an important strategy for their future. Given his past performance, I’m going to go with that 🙂
USV Is top performing because it is Fred’s third VC experience and he applied his experience.Andy & Albert seem pretty good too.But the Fred & Brad show is one for the ages.
A male friend of mine worked in a toxic environment once, it was unholy bad.11 women lawyers and him.
What’s your point? That women can be bad managers and employees too? Or that it will only be when all of them are great managers and employees that we should move to equality?
Just supporting Leigh’s suggestion that purple men or any one single group is a bad idea.And, that friend, when asked about being the only male lawyer in the group @ BP Canada said “No group should be primarily one gender or the other.’
Right. I get it. Thanks.I have made it a point to stay away from all purple men work environments. 🙂
I feel like my work is done here now 🙂
I always joke (yet it’s true) that in my first recruiting job, I was the only woman, the only racial minority and the only Gentile. It was very, very tough at the beginning — but by the end I ruled. 🙂
Cream rises!My friend Brian would describe, only to close audiences, that it was everything bad about women and they all came share to it with him.And, his conclusion was: “Its just like all the bad behaviour on Wall St……super juiced up people, tilting into a culture that is only one gender. unholy!”
oy gevault
I should have shared that my boss was openly ethnocentric — I probably could have sued. The only reason he hired me — and he made sure that I knew it — is that the CEO of our parent company who insisted on meeting every candidate in those early days, overrode his decision.Of course, as time went on, he took full credit.Becoming part of that team was so much harder than any challenge from the work itself. We pressed through and ended up having a very good interesting relationship. He actually shed tears on my last day. Now, we are Facebook friends.Oh, and by the time I left, we had become quite a diverse team. He admitted that I caused him to rethink some of his biases. (paraphrased)
I’ve never seen a purple manI never hope to see oneBut I can tell you, on the other hand,I’d rather see than be one(see what I did there)
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Oh, duh.Still mourning that one.
No it isn’t. There are policy justifications for positive discrimination and to the best of my knowledge the firm isn’t received public funds with strings.
Hitler had policy justifications for positive discrimination too.Its a slippery slope when you use superficial attributes to advance people.
We’re not talking about whether it is or isn’t a slippery slope. We’re talking about whether it is legal.
I like to skip over the question of whether right or wrong always = legal or illegal.Superficial preference is wrong & a slippery slope. Rationale is immaterial.Not an expert, but I imagine Fred’s policy is illegal ( although I could care less, it’s their company to do with as they wish ).
Not illegal.But you may of course not like it. 🙂
He is so many steps away from being in HR trouble. I don’t see the makings of a class action suit here.
If I was a LP, this would make me unhappy.Best person for the job.
Would be ironic if thousands of women teachers ended up with worse returns in their pension fund because USV picked a woman instead of the best available candidate regardless of sex.
Dave, Dave. You make it seem as though in order to hire a woman, they will need to settle for someone less capable. What are you saying, friend?You have obviously never been a woman in a highly competitive profession.
You missed the word ironic DB.It would be ironic.
Donna,Flip it around so you get my meaning. Imagine you want to get the best possible candidate, and you’re given two groups to search from:1) Everyone.2) Just men.You’d rather search from group 1), right? Because the best candidate among Everyone is going to be as good or better than the best candidate among Just Men, because Everyone includes Just Men.
What I was addressing was your insinuation that by eliminating men from consideration, they would lower their standards and potentially end up with an under-qualified woman who put their LPs at risk.I think we know that is not going to happen.As someone involved with hiring for a living, I would say that there are always limiting factors on what is designated as the best possible candidate.Let’s say I am doing a search where the company will not hire the most qualified candidate from the larger population of candidates, but rather the most qualified candidate who lives locally. For this company, the candidate’s location factors into what constitutes the best possible candidate. If there are no local qualified candidates, then they must decide whether the trade-off is a local candidate who is not fully qualified.In USV’s case, they have made a determination that hiring a woman partner is important to their long-term success. So, they have a situation similar to the above, substituting gender for location.The only way they would not make the best possible hire is if they had to opt for an unqualified woman over a qualified man in order to meet their goal.With the high bar that they seem to set, I am confident that they could find a woman who meets their standards. Would opening the role to male candidates allow them to hire someone who is better qualified? Possibly. And it would probably allow them to find this person more quickly because the selection is greater. But this does not mean they must hire beneath their standards in order to hire a women.My guess is that the teachers’ pension fund is safe. And they may even have a stronger fund in the future due to the new possibilities that open up for the firm.
BTW reading my earlier response the tone doesn’t sound “friendly” so please see through that. You know I hold you in high regard.
Back at ya.
Imagine this instead:You get one group to search from:EVERYONEThen you discuss. We could go with person a, b or c. Each bring different strengths and/or weaknesses but all are great and really you could go with any one of them.Rather than choosing someone who looks like everyone else at your organization/company you choose someone who looks different. Because diverse ecosystems are stronger.No compromiseNo choosing a less qualified anythingBuilding diversified teamsAnd in your experience if this NEVER happens – then i would suggest you have a unexpressed bias that maybe you want to identify over time.
I’m too tired from shoveling two feet of snow to shovel through this crap which is inconsistent with what Fred said above about giving preference to a female candidate.
Epson salts are always good for apres snow shovelling. As for debating someone and having it feel like you are shovelling crap? I suggest some Canadian Whiskey 🙂
Come to think of it, there is a way USV can improve its gender diversity without lowering its quality at all. It’s hinted at in the Kickstarter message (“people who identify as women”).Simply have one of the current USV partners start identifying as a woman.
What makes you think that having the next partner be a woman will lower the quality of anything? Assuming a roughly equal distribution of ability across sexes, they’ve already put themselves at a disadvantage by missing out on having a women as partner. The best person for the job is statistically likely to be a woman anyway.
1) Why would you assume a roughly equal distribution of ability across sexes? Do women receive a roughly equal number of Fields Medals as men? There tend to be longer tails in the distribution of abilities for men — more variation, more extremes.2) They’re not putting themselves at a disadvantage if they were considering women all along. They’re putting themselves at a disadvantage if they limit themselves to women.3) There’s no basis for this claim of yours: ” The best person for the job is statistically likely to be a woman anyway.”
What if you could be convinced that the best thing for the firm is diversification?
I am pretty sure that Fred will tell the LP’s that he is merely reflecting his market realities and that entrepreneur will appreciate what he is doing and that it will further raise USV’s profile.Its just sad that Millenials have been raised on identity politics and that free speech & merit have lowering levels of support.
Sorry James. I don’t think I quite understand your point?
Millenials like affirmative action.Today’s entrepreneurs are Millenials. Fred is no dummy.I think he believes it too.
Maybe @fredwilson:disqus is a pragmatist.As for the LPs … Hello! If we’re going to talk ROI and losses … https://uploads.disquscdn.c…And we haven’t even started to talk about how the US is supposed to compete against China in the next decade.* https://www.bloomberg.com/n… https://uploads.disquscdn.c… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
If Trump is not the next Great President of the US era, then he will be the dead cat bounce of American industriousness. If he fails, it will be the triumph of image over performance, self actualization over value creation and regulation over innovation in America.If that happens, China will eat America’s lunch.I have it 70/30 China right now.Oh – and Fred is totally a pragmatist ( see other comments ). Doesn’t makeIt right.
The Chinese do “Smile to Pay” feature on Alibaba’s mobile service and facial recognition is how you pass security to get into Baidu’s offices.Meanwhile, AirBnB has a ridiculous bug in its payments system wrt cancelled bookings and transferring it to new bookings. And at Google Campus you pass security either by typing your name into a box or swiping a card.Trump’s team look like they want to change SV’s ability to innovate and resource talent:* https://qz.com/925381/jeff-…
@jameshrh:disqus @andyswan:disqus @daveinhackensack:disqus @hymanroth:disqus why do you assume that @fredwilson:disqus is willing to sacrifice USV performance in order to advance the cause of social justice? Let’s give Fred a little credit here – USV is his baby, and I don’t think he would intentionally compromise USV for anything or anyone – it seems far more plausible that he believes hiring a woman partner is more likely to benefit USV than hiring a man.It doesn’t take too much creativity to think of some potential reasons why this might be the case:1- Sourcing deals from female entrepreneurs. The next time a female Mark Zuckerberg is deciding between USV and Sequoia, having a female partner leading the charge might help USV win.2- First-hand knowledge of consumer markets. Females make up half of all consumers, and the vast majority of family spending decisions. Seems having a woman partner’s perspective could help at times.3- Diversity in decision making. Men and women process information and make decisions differently (on average). Not too hard to imagine that increasing diversity among the decision makers could lead to less group think, and fewer silly mistakes.My point is that Fred undoubtedly has a better feel for what would make a great VC investment partner than we do, and what type of partner would be the greatest help to USV in particular.Second-guessing his judgement or motivation on this seems, well, arrogant.
Not second guessing his judgement makes this blog dead boring.Its hard to believe that one of the core characteristics of a great VC is female.I totally agree that Fred is right here – he is closer to his market and his market will respond incredibly strongly to this public position and the hiring of a non-male.1/3 of Millennials also believe that free speech that offends minorities (ethnic or religious) should not be protected. They are, as a group, completely lost on what is important in life. I doubt it is even their fault. That makes Fred’s insight expedient, but not right.Silly mistakes pretty rare @ AVC. Success is based on bigger successes from your good decisions. I personally don’t think there is a gender bias on that issue, but, if you wanted to take sides, men are historically more likely to create large things (mostly due to their emotional immaturity, IMHO).Fred’s a consumer, social media legend. Are there any social media creators who were female? I think its quite limiting to think that a man cannot understand women’s products or brands. An intelligent, informed perspective is one thing…a superficial label as the basis for it is another.You are kidding right? Sourcing deals from females because you have a female partner? The GG has done more ovaries only investing than any angel in history…….not one of them has made it into the AVC portfolio.Female entrepreneurs hit doubles for average.
“Its hard to believe that one of the core characteristics of a great VC is female.”Unless you believe both of these things:1. Women are inherently less capable at technical roles, investments, company leadership, etc.2. Women are capable, but there aren’t available any to hire…. then the fact that they are so severely underrepresented in those roles should tell you companies are already failing to hire the best performing people, and are instead prioritizing convenience, familiarity, network, etc. All of which are self-reinforcing.There is also plenty of research to support the strength of teams composed of diverse viewpoints. Gender is one strong way of diversifying a team’s DNA.
The point is that peronsality traits and interest are core characteristics to ‘great VC’ – not pigmentation or gender.So, I am married to a female engineer who leads 3500 people on behalf of the 4th largest energy company in the world…..so, let’s go with No for 1). ;-)And, your explanation for 2) is based on a faulty premise, which is: there are people outside the VC industry who are better @ VC than those who are already in it.People who excel do things that excite them – ask Warren Buffett.I don’t think many women, in the recent past, saw finance as exciting. It was a get rich career.Now, more women see people like Fred, who get excited about shepherding great ideas and people to success and they get excited about it too.So, more women enter at the bottom of the industry and work their way up.Is it two steps ahead and mondo cagey of Fred to publicly be a sexist about their next hire? Absolutely.Is it right? Of course not.
Not second guessing his judgement makes this blog dead boring. In the areas of entrepreneurship, management, strategy, economics, etc., I agree that the debates in the comments are the most interesting part – in fact that’s what I miss most about JLM’s absence.That said, criticizing Fred’s judgment on how to run a VC firm takes some chutzpah. (But if another VC shows up in the comments to do just that, I’m grabbing the popcorn.)Its hard to believe that one of the core characteristics of a great VC is female. I’m not suggesting that – that would be as silly as saying the reverse. I am suggesting that a VC firm is not just a collection of individuals, but a team who often make investment decisions collectively. Therefore it’s conceivable that adding to an investment team’s diversity of backgrounds might improve the outcomes. Silly mistakes pretty rare @ AVC. Ask Fred about declining to pursue airbnb and similar decisions that stemmed primarily from too-rigid thinking. I agree with you that USV is at the top of the VC game, but when Fred identified an area that he says would improve his company’s performance, I’m choosing to take that at face value.Are there any social media creators who were female?Sheryl Sandberg probably qualifies, given her role in FB’s success. Arianna Huffington is a pretty successful media 2.0 creator, by any objective measure, and given HP’s prominence among the FB posts in my feed, probably qualifies as a social media creator as well.You are kidding right? I’m not suggesting that my list of reasons is correct. I just offered 3 reasons that seemed plausible. My main point was that I think Fred is operating from a position of trying to make USV more successful, and NOT from a willingness to sacrifice company performance at the altar of social justice.Sourcing deals from females because you have a female partner? Again, I’m operating from a position of ignorance on this, but I think it’s plausible:I got my physics degree from BYU. We graduated 40 physics majors that year, which was second only to MIT. The interesting part was that almost half were women, compared to national averages of maybe 15%. The difference was so stark that the American Institute of Physics came to visit us to understand what we were doing that other universities could copy. The results of their investigation surprised me. It seems that our male:female ratio in our physics dept was mostly a self-perpetuating statistical anomaly. That is, when female students showed up to physics classes and saw other women in class, they felt welcome / at home. Whereas at other schools, female freshmen would show up in a class of ~10 students and not see other females, and not feel as comfortable, and be more likely to switch majors to one of the biological sciences, which are full of women. I don’t know how accurately that maps to female entrepreneurs seeking funding, but it seems plausible. I do know that my female classmates were wicked smart.
Appreciate your point by point approach!Fred has basically educated us over the years on VC. And, so many people here are so smart or have such amazing experience, that its OK to question him, here, when you would not others, elsewhere. JMO. Plus, Fred says he learns from AVC community, so, we have an obligation!Agree on a more diverse team, but its not like AVC has an investment theme that says ‘Tap the growing pool of female techno-leaders.’ or some such. If they had chosen a woman, I would not be surprised; that they have specifically (and now publicly) disadvantaged men is the wrong thing to do, likely on multiple macro angles (again, probably a savvy move for USV though).Passing on AirBnB is SOP in VC – https://www.bvp.com/portfol…Not fleecing Yahoo when you realized that David Karp could not turn Tumblr into a revenue producer, that would be silly.Figured you would come with Sandberg. She is an estimable operator and a worthy successor to Ballmer as “executive who really made everything they could out of the opportunity”…..but my point is that founders create the opportunity and great founders also unlock the opportunity…..while great ops execs (in startups) merely capture the opportunity. Why is Satya Nadella turning around MS when Ballmer couldn’t? Balmer does not have founder ‘product / market fit’ DNA. I would argue Sandberg is Ballmer and not Gates.I agree on Fred’s intent and as I have stated elsewhere on this page, he’s likely right and doing an excellent job of reflecting his Millennial market. Its the Millennials that need serious guidance. They are lost.Historically, great young VCs source deals from their work experience. They have to work at great places, full of great talent – PayPal mafia, FB, Goog, MS, etc. Schools can be a great source of deals too. What makes USV so amazing is that Fred & Brad built a great firm from the 20% of great entrepreneurs that don’t cluster in those places. For example, Garret Camp of Uber is from Calgary, AB, but put Uber together as part of the Chris Sacca hot tub mafia in SF.The BYU Physics story is really interesting, but I think it supports my thesis more than anything else: its fellow female classmates that sway women interested in physics to stick it out @ BYU, not professors.
Not fleecing Yahoo when you realized that David Karp could not turn Tumblr into a revenue producer, that would be silly.OK, I laughed out lout at that line.
Left-handed fencers have a big advantage over right-handed ones because they spend most of their time practicing against them but the right-handed ones rarely practice against lefties.
Sequoia has at least 3 female partners, by the way. Two in China.They appointed Jess Lee, ex-CEO of Polyvore, as a US partner last October.
If your firm has zero women, a woman is probably overwhelmingly the best person for the job because you’re missing an important viewpoint on 51% of the consumer market. You have an ostensible deficit and it needs to be corrected.Also: “best” will always be somewhat–maybe even largely–subjective. Women have to endure “cultural fit” hurdles that have nothing to do with competency to even have their competency evaluated. To pretend that the “best” distinction isn’t filtered through a social and cultural lens that privileges men, you really have to be sticking your head in the sand.Oh, and btw: at least in hedge funds, women generate higher returns: https://dealbook.nytimes.co…So any LP who has a problem with a female money manager probably isn’t focusing on returns; it’s about something else.
Best person for the job means that person comes to gig without baggage. Did I say it had to be any particular gender, race, creed or whatever? No.I am married to someone (female) who leads 3500 people on behalf of the world’s 4th largest energy company. Does being female inform her leadership? Sure. Does it inform her leadership as much as her personality, intelligence, upbringing and career experiences? I doubt it. (I don’t speak for her, but I know her pretty well).Is Energy more male dominated than finance or tech? If not, its pretty close (my wife’s title is VP Ops, blah blah blah – the women who lead operations in her industry are better than 98% of executives anywhere, not because they are women , but b/c successful Ops execs in that business are amazing humans).That’s a way better process – hire a woman but don’t flog it for marketing purposes.It does not surprise me that hedge funds led by women exceed others. If you wanted to make a very limited list of gender based generalization (say, 2 or 3 things that hold 80% of the time)….a better sense of and approach to dealing with risk would be a female trait, IMHO.Its just not an important enough aspect to prioritize in most occupations. And, its a slippery slope to exclude applicants based on superficial identity politics.
You miss my point that it needs to be a priority because if it isn’t, women get screened out on a “culture fit” (read: superficial, assumption-driven) basis in the early stages.
would also be curious to know what you think constitutes baggage, given that every experienced male operator i can think of has baggage in the traditional sense, and some of the most venerated innovators in tech (Steve Jobs, for example) had tons of it.
Baggage = non merit based promotion.
I find the notion that a woman would advance far enough to be considered at the partner level on a non-merit basis laughable. Is it technically possible? yes. I have never, ever seen it happen. I can’t think of a single senior woman i know in tech who got promoted regardless of performance/not on merit. But I can think of a few men. In my experience, men tend to be evaluated in terms of potential, and women tend to be evaluated in terms of performance and track record. Which means women often end up having to outperform men to get jobs at the same level, while the reverse isn’t true.
Conversely, my wife has shown me research that states that men pursue promotions when they feel their current capablilities cover off 50% of the new position……and women pursue them when their existing capabilities cover off of 80% of the new position.Doesn’t mean they do a better job, in the end, they are just more aggressive in pursuing opportunity.Look – if you get a job on a discount everybody knows, it doesn’t matter if it’s nepotism, sexism, racism or, my personal fave from days of yore, ‘I wish I had a son like you – ism.’Fred’s done the new non-male partner a disservice. Unlike someone like Andy, whom every one knew Fred was friendly with and genuinely admired, this person comes in at a discount.Plain and simple – she will not have to beat every other competitor straight up. And, she’ll have to work harder and do better, because the boys club @ USV put a public target on her.And, what’s worse, every women employed @ USV that I have met is – without this public fanfare, like all USVers – crackerjack.Btw – the ‘I got to be better’ mantra is old. Do you think USV had to work harder than Kleiner to get good deal flow, being based in NYC? Come on, of course they did. If you don’t, you are dreaming.Life isn’t fair for 99% of us.
I will agree that women in my experience as well that women don’t do that and that can mean they are less comfortable stretching in terms of job roles. However, it is also my experience that men are ASKED far more often then women to be in positions that they are stretching into – I rarely if ever see this happen to women. It means, more men at the top, more men as mentors and more men showing others who are like them that it’s possible. Again, change doesn’t just happen. I feel like arguing with you is like arguing with my husband. Just because YOU hire on merit and are conscious of bias doesn’t mean statistically and experience speaking that MOST men are not. We can’t build a model of change based on two guys. We have the build the model on MOST guys.
And given what you state (I buy into it), as time passes it will be interesting to see if women founders and hedge fund managers continue to outperform men or whether, as barriers to entry fall, women will be allowed to be in those higher positions while being ‘average’ relative to their peers. That’s when there will be true equality – when women don’t have to be exceptional to be at the table.
More women at bottom – in finance, in SW, in HW = more chances to fit.Common interest is what binds most founders together.Force fit rarely works. Agenda based hires, regardless of motivation, are force fits.
If a woman has overcome the odds to become a VC, the LP should be reassured that there is a strong possibility that she is quite exceptional.
Except the last USV partner was not really a VC ( Andy ).And, while I agree w you, Fred just put a fairly large question mark next to the assumed capability of the new non-male designated partner.She will get he job because she is a woman, not because, as a woman, she is likely 10-15% better.
Fred deserves more credit than that. He doesn’t tend to qualify his responses in the comments. You know, “less is more.”
What does that mean?Perception wise, he’s discounted the new partner by stating the bias publicly.I already think less of her 😉
Don’t you have a fiduciary responsibility to your LPs? You’ve essentially said ‘white males need not apply’ for the next partnership opportunity. You’re OK passing on the best new partner b/c he’s a caucasian he? Is that not discrimination? Have you passed on any potential partners b/c they were non-white females?
I don’t think he said white males need not apply…He said, diversity is important.
Not in so many words, but he did say that white males would ‘absolutely’ be disadvantaged with respect to applying to the partnership at USV. That’s discrimination (and racism/misandry), pure and simple; no different than discriminating against non-white women.
I don’t see it that way. I will also say though that my business partner (who is a man) and I are able to use our genders to our advantage all the time. It actually has been an important component to our success. So if you look at it from the lens of business, there are acute business advantages to having diversity from the get go. Having a thesis on what makes great Teams and cofounders is part of that and the way i read the post, he’s saying he believes (as I do) that diversity builds stronger teams that in the long run have a greater chance of being successful. Considering so many fail, it’s smart to have criteria. I think at different points in time, he’s also mentioned people outside a certain geography would be disadvantaged. I didn’t hear anyone yell that there was discrimination against x State or the other?
But he told Andy, flat out in a comment, men would be disadvantaged if they applied, because they were male.
Well i can’t speak to what @fredwilson meant to say but what i read is that anyone who doesn’t have diversity is disadvantaged. He said the same thing about location once too …
This is ridiculous Leigh. He responded ‘Absolutely’ to a point blank question. There is no wiggle room.
The left views relationships as oppressor vs. oppressed. Discrimination is fine-and-dandy to the left so long as the victim of the discrimination is the oppressor (in this case, white men). Since it would be someone applying to the USV partnership, it’s even more OK to discriminate since it would be discriminating against an affluent white man.
There was a context around that …
I give.
Here is the verbatim transcript — you can scroll around and read it yourself.Question: Just to be clear– are you suggesting that a white male has an intentionally created disadvantage, due solely to his gender, when it comes to becoming USV’s next partner?Answer: AbsolutelyJust because the victim (of the discrimination) is a white male it does not mean that the discrimination did not occur. This statement is not open to interpretation — it’s blatant discrimination against white men (being perpetrated by white men).
He told Andy that men were purposely disadvantaged.
My other comment still stands – disadvantaged due to lack of diversity. Could be disadvantaged based on location etc.
You are painting this with an ideological hue that soothes you.Andy referenced men being “purposefully disadvantaged” and Fred responded “Absolutely.’Absolutely sexist behaviour, but for a good cause.Hitler used the ‘for a good cause’ rationale too.Treating people differently based on superficial, generalized attributes is a slippery slope, there is no other way around it.
Godwin’s Law holds yet again
Stupid rule. I rarely invoke Hitler.It also does not undermine the validity of the point I am making: liberals who want to bend the rules in favour of people, using identity politics primarily, are on a slippery slope that leads to fascism and nationalism.Superficial favouritism breeds resentment. If you are a 34 yo white male who has spent the past decade dreaming of and preparing yourself to be a partner @ USV…..and now your testicles preclude you…..that might strike you as unfair.But, Andy Swan is right: now you can just ‘identify’ as female and ask for the job, knowing that a groundswell of righteous indignation (and maybe even funding for a lawsuit) will rise up behind you.I am kidding, but jeez.
Oh geeze. The Hitler reference. It’s not ideology – it’s philosophy and there is a HUGE difference there. We all treat people differently. I think a huge issue is people say that they don’t. Recognizing inherent bias and actively working to change it is when change happens (just if i’m connecting all our conversations 🙂
Fair enough.I am biased toward ability, as I think anyone & everyone should be.I treat everyone the same, which has been a huge professional disadvantage.Fred’s not biased against women – look who he married.The issue is – should you act unfairly to account for inequitable numbers in the system or should you work to even out the numbers?To me, the equitable thing is to work on he numbers, which takes longer but is more ethical.And, logically, the cliche Hitler reference holds: do you really think he did not think that he was ‘acting to change an inherent bias in the German system?’And, obviously, who decides on these inherent biases and how to fix them? People who think they know better.Stick to systemic fairness for he long term health if the system.
I totally agree and support this. I’ve done the same thing myself. Just prepare yourself for backlash. 🙂
Can you elaborate on why it is ok to do at the management level? At an analyst level this would be completely unacceptable. i.e. suppose Github publicly said: We are hiring for software engineers, must be a non-(Straight White Male). I don’t get how this is any different, you even mentioned above that hiring is merit based.I guess I understand the rationale, but I’m worrisome that this kind of behavior is becoming seemingly ok to do.I work for a partnership at the moment. If I work my butt off for years and strive to achieve partner someday, is it ok that the partners disregard promoting me to partner because I am a straight white male?
Happy to.Firstly, I think there is a misunderstanding of what such a positive discrimination policy means. It does not mean that it is an overriding consideration so absolute and so focused on the one attribute of a person that it is the only thing that will come into play when hiring. I don’t think that Fred or anyone else is advocating for such an absolute policy.Secondly, hence there is no contradiction between wishing to increase diversity in this manner and merit based hiring. Ironically I see this the other way around. I see it as an opportunity to widen the talent pool. In my experience of building a company our policy was to hire anyone of any ethnicity, color, religion, sexuality so long as they were talented. Thirdly, when our history is such that some people have long been advantaged (eg white males) there are indeed likely to be cases where a white male is going to feel aggrieved when he doesn’t get the job that he is accustomed to think of as his birthright. Some people will see this as a side effect of things leveling out. Others will fester and rage.
Bad answer
I am late to this, but I am not sure gender, race, etc. should be an explicit driver in a management decision. Diversity of thought, personality and background >> Diversity of Gender or Race. Yes, the latter can influence the former, but not in all cases.May be the right question to ask for is: What type of alternate perspectives do you want at a partner meeting that you do not get today? What type of candidates are more likely to provide that?
Tech needs more than commitment. It needs to de-bias because those “brilliant,” entitled male engineers can’t solve the Natural Language Understanding problem (which means potentially DOUBLING the value of today’s $100 TRILLION global economy) and tech needs female domain expertise in language, intuition and heart.In this month’s Atlantic:* https://www.theatlantic.com…The Atlantic: “In contrast, a 2015 study published in Science confirmed that computer science and certain other fields, including physics, math, and philosophy, fetishize “brilliance,” cultivating the idea that potential is inborn. The report concluded that these fields tend to be problematic for women, owing to a stubborn assumption that genius is a male trait.”Interestingly …The Independent: “Cells with paternal genes accumulated in parts of the limbic system, which is involved in functions such as sex, food and aggression. But researchers did not find any paternal cells in the cerebral cortex, which is where the most advanced cognitive functions take place, such as reasoning, thought, language and planning.”* http://www.independent.co.u…Notably, on 02 March 2017 in SF, Google Research shared their failed attempts to “infuse intuition” into Formal Reasoning frameworks, to try to get the machines to actually understand text. This failure despite a slew of supposedly “brilliant” male PhDs, more data than most, their best Neural Network models and 1000’s of machines being run to process the data.So … this is why Silicon Valley needs women; we have natural domain expertise in intuition and language. Evolution and our role in educating babies across diverse and complex subjects baked this in to female intelligence and knowhow.Plus, as far back as 1997, John Hopkins & University of Sydney neuroscience research showed that Wernicke’s area (language comprehension) is 18% larger in women and the cortical volume of Broca’s area (speech production) is 20% larger.Ergo, not only did Babbage NEED Ada Lovelace’s program to get the first-ever computer to work, Silicon Valley needs modern versions of Ada to solve the Natural Language Understanding problem in AI that none of those “brilliant” male PhDs have been able to solve.And they’ve had 60+ years of exclusively-male dominance in AI to solve it.So those “brilliant” male PhDs need women to save them with Common Sense and Language 101.
Diverse, non-autistic systems make better decisions.UZZI: What we found was this. When traders are low in emotional states, they’re very cool-headed, they tend to make bad decisions. They’re too slow in taking advantage of an opportunity in the market, and they tend to hold on to bad trades too long. Exactly what you don’t want to do. We also found that when they were in a very high emotional state, they did the same thing. When they were at an intermediate level of emotion, somewhere between being cool-headed and being highly emotional, they made their best trades.* https://insight.kellogg.nor…Ergo, Descartes’ ideas that the best reasoning happens with “separation of mind from body from emotions” is just plain WRONG.Rationality, by itself, does not produce the better value outcome. It needs emotions and it needs heart.
i would say slightly, but not because of his gender. A lot of the areas USV is pushing into (say, healthcare tech), where they were weak on employees has in the past 10 years had more women enter the field (Including areas like biostatistics). Now, biomechancial engineer is over 50% women. Biostatistics I think is at 50% (including areas like AI in biology). Hell, two of the labs involved in the CRISPR-CASE9 patent fight were headed by 2 women. (https://www.statnews.com/20… Jennifer Doudna, UC Berkley and Emmanuelle Charpentier, Max Planck Institute of Infection Biology, Berlin – they cowrote this paper DOI: 10.1126/science.1225829 )One of their current analyst is a woman who specializes in this area (Jennifer Campbell.) She recently published this post:https://www.usv.com/blog/ca…(Which I’m not surprised about, but that’s a different conversation) But that isn’t the same as having a partner, especially one who has had a research background/left a university/lab/brought a company to birth in this area. Considering that right now there are more women doing this cutting edge work, if you are going to hire someone to be more permanent than an analyst, you’re likely to get a lot female applicants who are very qualified and are therefore likely to get the job.
I’m just excited we are acknowledging that there are differences between men and women here.
There are differences between men and women. How does it matter for your daughter? By the time she’s at work, she won’t be put into a box defined by a handful of guys who don’t represent her and whose mental models aren’t even mathematically representative of other guys — much less as the base benchmark for billions of people around the world.In 60+ years of almost exclusively male dominance in AI, male engineers have been very good at building systems that think linearly, linearly in parallel and that do forwards-backwards propagation (the basis of Deep Learning, pattern recognition and vision recognition).BUT male engineers have 0 clue how to solve the Natural Language Understanding problem. AND there are a whole bunch of problematic biases in the data that make solving NLU with that existing data even harder and more server inefficient than it could be.This lack of knowhow in AI may have to do with fundamental differences in how the genders think and solve problems. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…https://uploads.disquscdn.c…Last week, Google Research’s Christian Szegedy showed up at an AI meetup in SF and shared they’re stuck with running their combination of Deep Learning models (xNN, Tree-LSTM, Wavenet) with lots of their data across 1000’s of servers, to try to get the machines to understand text and infuse intuition into formal reasoning systems.I’m on camera noting that if they had a better sentiment classifier, that might help them solve the “inductive variances” problems they’re having.He replied he didn’t know how they could do this. It’s clear their cleverest PhDs can’t solve it:* https://www.technologyrevie…* http://searchengineland.com…Here’s the thing: even if Google were to apply all the Psychometric methods that have been published in the States since the 1920s, the male PhDs still would NOT have the right sentiment classifiers AND they still wouldn’t be able to overcome the flaws of Descartes’ deductive and inductive logic trees combined with those in Knowledge Graphs.The reason is that to get to NLU would require the re-engineering of 2000+ years of assumptions that reasoning is about pure Rational Logic (linear algebra, classical mechanics and probability+statistical methods), absent of subjective perceptions and social context.And Google’s own Ray Kurzweil said in July 2016: “Consciousness is a synonym for subjectivity and really having subjective experience, not just an entity that appears to have subjective experience. And fundamentally that (subjectivity’s) not a scientific concept. Science is really a synonym for objectivity, and consciousness is a synonym for subjectivity, and there is an inherent gulf between them.”There’s only one person who’s invented a system to make subjectivity a scientific concept that isn’t predicated on 2000+ years of linear algebra, classical mechanics and probability+statistics and it’s a WOMAN.And she did it years ago before people like Kurzweil and Max Tegmark of MIT started to publish their theories on consciousness and subjectivity. Oh and she’s already filed a patent and it’s passed prior art.@fredwilson:disqus @wmoug:disqus @SixgillBlog:disqus @hymanroth:disqus @ShanaC:disqus @le_on_avc:disqus @leigh:disqus @SaltShaker1:disqus — I’ve earned March 11 off to go eat a LOT of ice-cream and have quiet time to remember my Dad.His greatest legacy is he tooled me with the same STEAM knowhow he did my brothers from the youngest age.
get a great flavor!
Found this total treasure trove!* https://www.rachelignotofsk…How’s about … !!! STAR WARS ice-cream!!!https://uploads.disquscdn.c…They also have Durian flavor which is super-rare and yummy.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
And the overwhelming evidence from studies of teams is that differences strengthen teams.
But mostly crappy studies with no causal identification
It is interesting you feel that way. I’d be curious what sort of studies you are referring to.FYI Google looked into team productivity to try to better understand how to explain why some teams were materially more productive than others. This was a well resourced group that studied the topic for years – Project Aristotle. They had a huge amount of internal data and of course were conducting research into the state of the art studies and theories in academia. https://www.nytimes.com/201… for an introduction.The main conclusions were that diversity of teams and a culture supporting “high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues.”
I hate that line. I’ve hated it since I was a very young child, and it was used on me to tell me why my brother was “specialer” in what he got to learn in school (they started teaching the boys Jewish law in 5th grade, and not the girls, because girls didn’t really need to know about how to learn Jewish law since they couldn’t become rabbis: they just needed to understand practical implications for the home…), or that I couldn’t witness in a Jewish court because I was a woman, and woman are different. (usually “holy” or “special”)Reality is that everyone is on a bell curve of all sorts of talents and interests. I have no idea why women are choosing to go into biostatistics over a cs ai program, even though fundamentally the math is the SAME. This is why DE Shaw recruits from biostastics phds to recruit women, since they have extremely similar math backgrounds as some of the physics and cs people, except they were doing biology. My best guess from knowing one of the top biostasticians in the country (ironically male), is the people in the field are just nicer and are generally trying to place their MS students (and sometimes others) into places where they can do the most good for society. It tends to attract people who want to help others, both male and female, and tends to be less cut throat after a certain point, because people are more idealist. Considering what we know about research behind women and jobs, it isn’t surprising that women would take the SAME COURSEWORK for a different end just based on a different framing and then GET SHUT OUT when certain jobs frame back towards competitiveness vs collaboration and fixing problems.
Fred should have grown up in my house. https://youtu.be/nxxu4Jk6nTs
andyswan:Would you have considered USV providing an advantage to all white males before this newly packaged corporate cultural diversity change in corporate America?
I always considered USV a merit-based firm, and its success never surprised me as a result.
Building in diversity early makes a lot of sense. Good advice.
Actually, it is horrible advice for a startup.You need personality types to mesh, a shared commitment to the success of the venture and hopefully, shared values (FB worked without this last one). Whatever external package that comes in, grab it.Diversity is not often a key component of a culture that pulls off the nearly impossible.
could. not. disagree. more. And i think assuming that people from the same background assumes they should mesh – well clearly you need to come to my house at Passover to see how wrong that theory actually is 😉
I didn’t say that.I said that superficial identify / diversity politics has no place in the early stages of a high growth startup.What should matter:1) conscious choice of certain personality types2) commitment / excitement about venture3) shared values optionalIncredible talent assumed.Pigmentation, X/Y chromosome, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or gender ( WTF is even the right word for this now? identification?) are completely irrelevant to performance.
Commonalties make great Teams (shared values, shared passions) and differences make a brilliant company (as much diversity as you can get in the context of the best candidates). You need both.
That is true, but great high scale startups that turn into huge great companies don’t need diversity until well into maturity.Your business – and let’s be clear, any business that goes from nothing to maturity, regardless of size, is a great accomplishment – can sand should be diverse @ 50 employeees…..but did you prioritize diversity when you were hiring #s 3,4&5?I say you shouldn’t, especially if hyper growth is on the horizon.
We didn’t need to prioritize it because it was our starting point. I’m a Jewish woman. My business partner is a WASP man. Next person was LGBT, and then we hired a number of people who all looked like us – around 10 people we felt we were super white. We actively recruited people of colour for our next few hires but they didn’t turn out to be the best candidates. However, we continued with that, and we now are execptionally diverse and reflect the country that we market in. AND just yesterday working on a campaign for Canada’s 150 we had 3 jr employees point out a very subtle yet important cultural bias in some scripts we were working on. It was awesome.
In other words, diversity is your product.No wonder you have Govt of Can biz.Well done.
Always interested in divergent opinions. That is in fact, my nature 🙂 Makes me smarter…
people who identify as women comprise roughly 54% of our staff (compared to 51% in 2014), which makes us an outlier among tech companies in theDefining what a ‘tech company’ is is a bit like trying to define what a robot is. I don’t see ETSY as a tech company. It uses tech just like practically every company does today in order to facilitate it’s business. [1] And taking orders over the web doesn’t seem to make you a tech company.And what gives with allowing someone to decide ‘identify as a woman’ exactly? Not to open a can of worms but can this decision be ephemeral? [2][1] It’s unfortunate that there is not a word to describe companies that don’t fall into the mold of traditional companies and aren’t particularly new so they can’t be classified as ‘startups’. Which in itself has a meaning which doesn’t seem to include the local traditional small company that is new to business and will service your electric or plumbing or do home repairs.[2] I often decide to use the womans bathroom because there isn’t one available for men or it’s being used. I will feel less guilty about doing that now.
I am considering identifying as a woman next year for a few months to realize my dream of being the MVP of the WNBA…before any other washed up guys like me get the idea
i appreciate the joke but there are some legit ballers in the WNBA. as the NBA continues to get less aggressive (i.e. no hand check) i think we’ll see a woman who can compete and succeed, probably as a point guard, in the NBA. which could be great in my opinion. may the best person win…..
lol you’re so…so…wrong. The best WNBA team (does anyone know who that is?) would get ran out of the Indiana boys high school tourney
I think that would actually make a successful pay per view event.https://www.youtube.com/wat…
can’t do team by team comparison, but rather player vs player. diana taurasi from WNBA is going to blow away a lot of these high school kids. maybe not all of them, because some will probably be in the NBA in a couple years, but the overwhelming majority for sure.
http://nesn.com/2014/01/u-s…Women’s gold medal hockey losing to random high school boys teams.
lol c’mon you know you can’t compare hockey to basketball
I feel like I played enough bball to make this call.
Totally legit comparison.Female hockey is 10x better than it was 20 years ago, as well.
You are taking an historically great WNBA PG and admitting that a significant minority of HS PGs would be a tough matchup.You take her, I will take Cooper Neese (I have never heard of him either). He’s the #48 PG recruit for next year, committed to Gonzaga and he is…..from Indiana!http://247sports.com/Season…
I’m saying the vast majority of hs point guards would not fare well, not a minority.I don’t deny the differences between the sexes, my only claim is that outliers do exist and can outperform, and changes in the game will make outliers slightly more common. Thus deeply extreme, wide sweeping comments are in my opinion suspect.
College yes, HS no, though historically stacked HS school teams (e.g., Oak Hill) are prob as good as D-League.
Many of those WNBA players come from UConn in Connecticut, where we train the best basketball players and build the best basketball teams in the world. Coach Geno has them play against male college players in practice as well as women. They don’t have much trouble beating them.
Wait who wins?
The women.
Lol that’s ridiculous. I’d love to see any video of this ever produced. Giving up 6 inches, 50 pounds and 8inches of vertical leap per position. Cmon
Honestly I could MAYBE believe it if they brought in intramural guys. Maybe
The practise guys are not there to win: https://sports.vice.com/ca/…
Clearly
In the dorms, practice players are also the oracles for what seems like a natural curiosity of other male students. ”Everybody wants to know how good the girls really are,” Cofrancesco said. ”They say, ‘Could I take Taurasi?’ And I say: ‘No, you couldn’t. Not even close.’ ”http://www.nytimes.com/2004…
As I expected…These are students…Not men’s college players.I’m not taking anything away from these ladies. They are awesome! My college gf was offered WNBA — our teams often shared the gym for shooting sessions etc. But it’s a TERRIBLE comparison. It’s not even close.
Sorry, this is ridiculous.You take Serena Williams (greatest female athlete EVAH! big, big fan…but ). I will take the #100 male ATP dude.Smoke Show.Hint: Her 1st serve is an avg to weak men’s 2nd serve.Couldn’t resist – http://www.atpworldtour.com…This would be an awesome PPV. #100 is Nic Kicker (real name) and he is 5’10” & 165.
My heavily qualified comment was I response to an extremely broad sweeping comment. You say something will occur in 100% of the time, I say 99.99. Of course, the magic and fun are always in the outliers…..
Careful, that may influence your perception of Planned Parenthood, though I’m pretty sure Candace Parker, Maya Moore, etc., would school your ass 🙂
I don’t think about PP at all
Though you might when you’re Andrea Swan.
When I was single I used to go there to pick up what are called ‘vaginal condoms’. At retail (if you can find them) they were maybe $2 a piece. At PP you got them for free but boy did I get stares when picking them up. They are great by the way, highly recommend them.https://www.plannedparentho…
I would. Radiation to the chest increases the risk to breast cancer significantly. PP subsidizes the cost of Mammograms for anyone who walks into the door, and if they have the machines (they probably will be getting them soon) they’ll end up subsidizing the costs of breast tomograms/3d mammograms (which are more slightly more sensitive to detecting masses without the significant false positive rate of an MRI)
Fun fact: Candace Parker plays the same position as me.I have 5 inches and about 70 pounds on her. I was known for playing “bigger than I was” in college….You may want to rethink that bet 😉
Ah yes, I think The Boss wrote a song about “Glory Days.” No doubt in your prime I’m certain you’d physically wear her down, shoot over her, etc., but unless you’re in phenomenal shape (now, not then) I’d put my money on Candace. I can still shoot pretty well, better than 75% of the guys at my gym, but I can’t move. Age is a big equalizer. Very humbling :)Edit: And I say all that w/ respect and appreciation that you’re a legit baller!
I can still dunk without a step and lift heavier than I did in college. Now my 400m time is prob a few seconds slower than hers as I haven’t been under a minute in a while…but her only chance to score would be a fast break. She’s AWESOME and I love her game but this argument is ridiculous.I don’t think people understand the MASSIVE difference between male and female athletes.
I’ve got you pegged at around 37 (as I see you started playing college ball in 1998)? Candace is now 30. I actually thought you were a bit older so I’ll recant my earlier testimony. You’re not yet old enough to be gassed, but trust me, it’s coming :)PS–Fred should run an ACV tourney pool. Hell, I’d even set it up if he bit.
It’s my wisdom that makes people think that
You should officially apologize for this.Andy would destroy any WNBA power forward and has another solid 10 years where that will still be the case.Buddy of mine was bragging how his old guys team was still schooling younger guys and closed wth ‘one of our guys is 52!’I correctly guessed: “Your 5/Post, right?”You can’t coach’em up to be 6’9” and that still matters.
Ha, I already did my mea culpa w/ Andy (read the entire thread). I thought Andy was a lot older than he is. I had the dubious distinction years back of losing a 2-on-2 game at my NYC gym where my teammate was Greg Butler (Knicks 2nd Rd pick, Stanford, 6’11”, 240 lbs). It wasn’t Butler’s fault as the guy I was guarding, one of the really good players in our gym, schooled me miserably. Just ate me alive. Butler was actually pissed when we lost. I felt like saying, “Yo Greg, get a life,” but then I quickly remembered he’s 6’11” & 240.
I did see it, but I didn’t think it was strong enough. It s not that Andy is in his 30’s, its that Andy is 6’9″.That is what I was getting at.Competitive guys remain competitive. How did you ever end up in a 2on2 with him as the other guy? What’s he doing now would also be an interesting answer.
If Andy was 47 (and not 37) a player w/ Candace’s youth (30) and skills would wear him down. Andy would physically run out of gas, size and all. I’ve played softball with many former MLB Players, including several HOF-ers (players now in their late 40’s, early 50’s). The only guy who was still truly “buff” was Jim Rice. He looked fit enough to still play big league ball. The other guys, well, let’s just say age doesn’t work in mysterious ways. Wrt Greg Butler, he just showed up at the gym one day. Another time I was shooting around w/ this 6’9″ black dude. He had no shirt on and was skinny as a rail…..a real bean pole. So I asked, “did you play any ball?” He said “yes” and I said “where?” He goes “Boston.” I said “BC or BU”, thinking he’s a former college player. He said, “no, Celtics.” I said, “who are you?” He said “Pervis” (one name only, just like Cher). I said, “you mean like Never Nervous Pervis.” He said “that’s me.” There’s not too many places to play ball in Manhattan so players show up where they can. (Btw, Pervis’s kid is a starting guard at St. John’s. I think Greg Butler works in finance.)
Super cool stuff. I always remember Never Nervous wearing braces @ the ‘Ville.I still contend that a 30 yo next Candace Parker had better be shooting the lights out, when @andyswan:disqus is 47. Size matters.
You say that until you start looking for obscure stuff on etsy, and then you realize, e-commerce with no official inventory make for a difficult internal search engine.
The way I see it it can be reduced down to ‘who is giving them money and why?’. The airline reservation system and air control system is quite sophisticated but nobody would consider an airline a tech company. And nobody would consider Boeing a tech company (the airplane division) even though the difficulty of that operation is way more than Etsy or Amazon or even most ‘tech’ companies. (REALLY). None of this matters of course but the fact that tech aids or enables ‘the why and who’ doesn’t make it a tech company.IIM, here is the DJ Tech Index:https://markets.ft.com/data…
that’s a culture of ny tech question. and it beats me why things are the way they are
Nearly half of Etsy’s employees are engineers designers and product managers who build software
In the following quotes, I go with Payne and Berkowitz, you go with Bettinel and Barna. That said Bettinel is totally off base in terms of his demarcation point.”You are a technology company if you are in the business of selling technology–if you make money by selling applied scientific knowledge that solves a concrete problem.”– Alex Payne, Co-Founder, Simple—–“It’s generally a company whose primary business is selling tech or tech services. A more nuanced definition is a company with tech or tech services as a key part of its business. It’s a hard question.”– Todd Berkowitz, VP of Research, Gartner—–“A tech company uses technology to create an unfair advantage in terms of product uniqueness or scale or improved margins. Ask the question: Could this company exist without technology? If the answer is no, it has to be a tech company.”– Greg Bettinelli, Partner, Upfront Ventures—–“I think there’s a false dichotomy in the idea that a company either is or is not a tech company. I think it’s possible for a company to be a hybrid if tech is giving it an edge over incumbents.”– Hayley Barna, Venture Partner, First Round Capital
THIS: https://uploads.disquscdn.c…And this …* http://www.motherjones.com/…https://uploads.disquscdn.c…I filed a patent because, as a teenager, I walked past Rosalind Franklin’s labs every morning on my way to maths classes so that made me aware of how women’s work can be appropriated by others without credit and they’re rendered invisible.Mine is the only name on that patent so no one can say, “Oh, he was the one who wrote it. She probably just did the photocopying and he was being nice to her so let her put her name there.” It happens.As a woman in tech (esp in AI), I’ve shown up and spoken up even when the ratio was 500:5. And I put my name on every piece of work just as the Artists sign theirs as proof of work.Besides which, very early on, I worked for three phenomenal male managers (two when I was a teenager and one when I was in my 20s). None of them made sexually inappropriate comments towards any female employees and all of them PUBLICLY credited my hard work and tooled me so I could excel in my job and run with projects autonomously.They set the foundations for why and how I can do a lot of the things I can today.My UBS manager went to Special Committee to make the case for my promotion so I became the first person in the bank’s history to be thus promoted.So they’re the platinum benchmarks by which I gauge men I interact with, as I navigate SV and its diversity challenges.They went more than the extra miles. Which may be why I’ve now gone more than those extra miles to try to solve Natural Language Understanding.So male managers shouldn’t underestimate how much they can inspire and transfer know how to their female colleagues. And they should go those extra miles to do so because it transforms people’s lives.
Let me share this because it speaks to how male VCs may have unconscious biases and think, “She’s not ready to be made a partner” when it’s probably better to make her a partner and let her run with it.My senior colleague at UBS decided to join another team. Instead of going outside or internally to look for someone to fulfill his role, my manager gave me those extra responsibilities.I was supposed to have 5+ more years’ experience than I had at the time.At first, I was apprehensive but he made it clear he had my back. I took to the new responsibilities like duck to water.A few months later, I led the negotiations and wrote the documents that secured UBS one of four board seats against 25 competing institutions in http://www.rdc.comA few months after that, I was in CEO-Chairman’s Office working on the corporate agenda. I was in my mid-20s.So I learnt this from my then manager: JUST DO IT. GO FOR IT. MAKE IT HAPPEN.
As for your questions about gender (not the bathroom part, but the arbitrariness parts)This is a just guess, based on watching an extremely good friend, an extraordinary kind person (a model of how an individual should act towards an individual is usually how I describe him), move from lesbian, to genderqueer, to now male on hormones who will eventually go through surgery(ies) over the decade I’ve known him: most people seem to know who and what they are both sexually and gender-wise underneath, though the surety in what the right terms are and how they all work together don’t seem to all fit together until around 22-25. There seem to be good reasons for this, there are small areas of the brain associated with gender and sexuality (and they are different in gblt+ people, both around gender and sexuality. Example of a pop science article talking about a roundup of some studies: https://www.scientificameri… ). However, the brain doesn’t fully mature out of puberty until ones early-mid 20s (and it still has plasticity afterward!), so the question of what someone is in their own head can be fairly flexible. Furthermore, culture and family pressure can further complicate this acceptance.My friend, through his (technically still continuing, because surgery, but from an identity pov, mostly finished) transition didn’t really change that much at his CORE. He still loved the same foods, found the same type of women attractive, wanted (and is now pursuing) the same job (rabbi), like the same type of tv shows, still makes an excellent challah, and is still a horrible dancer. What HAS happened is like most 20-somethings, he got more comfortable with himself, and as he got more comfortable, the label he used to describe himself changed. (all in all, a good and healthy thing)Interestingly, he comes from the midwest/a rust belt area. And while the politics around what he did aren’t so great, among the people who know him, the transition ISN’T a surprise. As many people who know him (including me) would say, this person was always kind of a guy ANYWAY. (frankly, as his friend, it is easier now that he’s a guy than when he was genderqueer or a lesbian. )____I have to say this as a contrasting note:I happen to be bisexual. I happen also to not be interested in women romantically. (and I’m engaged, so it doesn’t matter now anyway). My now fiance actually had to explain to me how I was being bisexual, and I got furious and then started crying for a few hours. I then spent over a month having to rethink a bunch of things about myself and what it all meant. I suspect the reason why I avoided the issue, and why I am not interested romantically, despite knowing very lovely women who would make excellent partners for someone out there, was culturally driven. In my own head, being bisexual was worse than being gay or lesbian because of the way I grew up and how the role of women was perceived. As it was, I was having (and sometimes still do) a hard time with how gender was performed. While I knew I was a girl/woman, I made for a terrible orthodox girl/woman; I didn’t fit into the notion of how orthodox girlhood or womanhood should look, and for a while, I felt guilty about that. Being bisexual on top of that was just too much to handle for me, especially in an environment that doesn’t really explain sexuality well, nor one with a broad cross section of positive female icons. I do wonder if my reactions to myself would have been different if that was different.PS: Stop worrying about bathrooms, I’ve used the men’s bathroom when there was no one there and the line was too long for the women’s bathroom. We’re all worrying about an unnecessary modesty
Not a fan of a) woman not showing up for work and b) only patronizing woman or minority owned businesses. [1] After all woman work for male owned businesses and by not patronizing those you are impacting woman in the end. Or the wife of the person who runs the business etc.[1] And what’s with throwing in that kitchen sink anyway? Why not also include businesses run by handicapped people. Or people who have been cleared of crimes by DNA? Or Veterans?
What a quagmire.
In the 1990s at At Andersen Consulting all my best project managers were women. Generalizing a bit, but I agree with research that shows women are often more compassionate, socially and interpersonally adept than males. I wonder how many of my mangers advanced to become partners?
I wonder how many excellent project managers possess the nature of a great partner, regardless of gender?My opinion would be: few.
it is really tough in early stage startups as you say Fred.I think the faster and bigger change will occur in the encouraging and funding of women entrepreneurs. That to me is the big change agent that will tip the scale faster.and honestly it is simply good business sense for your company to resemble the market you sell into.
A-Train this is so bang on.You don’t unfairly and symbolically push people to the top. You feed the system from the bottom.Trudeau’s cabinet has a handful of really young women, some of whom are really struggling (mostly because of their youth, not their gender). Our PM couldn’t give a rat’s ass – he got the big, symbolical, global checkmark beside the Justin Trudeau, Progressive Warrior box.I get that Fred thinks this is right. Its just weird that a bottom up guy would try to fix things by bolting on a top down solution.
Fred knows exactly what he is doing.Never met an individual who could be so deliberate and creative at the same time without an ounce of tokenism.
Yes, I ageee.I fear for liberal ideals like equality & free speech. Millenials, globally, believe in them less than prior generations.I raise this, b/c I am 100% sure is reflecting his market with this stance. It just saddens me.
Too often tech and diversity are looked upon as unique or anomalous when in reality they’re just a microcosm of biz and society in general. Take a look at finance or the mgt at most ad agencies, very much male/white dominated. Maybe Google, Apple, etc., are comfortable w/ female employees taking a day off in observance, but I guarantee that’s not the case w/ many other industries, and perhaps rightly so. Not to diminish the importance of diversity in biz, it’s very impt., but I do think there are better ways to channel and elevate its importance than diminishing company productivity. Seems silly. Just sayin.
Wrt “most ad agencies, very much male/white dominated,” $18 TRILLION is a conservative estimate for how much business opportunity is being lost.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…That’s even before we get into the AdTech not serving male consumers and brands generally either.@fredwilson:disqus – There are so many bottomline reasons to solve the Natural Language Understanding problem that are separate and independent (yet connected) with the “truth of news” and tech’s sexism problem.
I love your comment about starting early in a company’s life cycle. It’s so important! Once it’s all men running the show it becomes very difficult to change it — partly because the numbers aren’t working in your favor, partly because women don’t want to join, and partly because a commitment to balance when you are so far unbalanced inevitably leads to the men feeling resentful that they are perceived as “in the way.” It’s SO much better if the company begins at 50/50 and grows that way then trying to fix it after.I realize that is easier said than done, for many reasons, but it’s impressive how many companies in the USV portfolio have.
Is this based on multiple start up experiences?
How is USV to address an apparant lack of diversity?There are multiple identity combinations in society. Your going to need to expand dramatically to be seen as truly diverse, or you simply (as i assume you always have) carry on choosing the best candidate for the role. Either that or you’ve finally been caught positively discriminating in favour of white males. Which is it?
we will have to commit to it and “take and sustain the actions that will lead to diversity”
I think encouraging the entire system to have more women is a far more productive and equitable approach.Bolting on top-down symbolic solutions rarely works. In anything.
Fred, the business rationale for gender diversity (separate from any moral rationale) is that diverse teams make better decisions.Curious if you have any specific examples where the USV partnership made mistakes because of a lack of gender diversity.
there are so many, where do i start?
an interesting story
All VC’s make more bad decisions than goods ones.Its how good the good decisions are that count….and there is no evidence that I have ever seen that supports diversity making better ‘good’ decisions in VC.Totally the USV partnership’s call…..but its hard to support evidencially I believe.
While I understand the social ideal of gender diversity, is there any data to support that a more diverse workplace produces better results in any measurable fashion – such as product quality, customer retention, investor return, etc. I haven’t seen any data but would be interested.The last I heard, VC’s are still looking for 100x. So until you can tie the two together – Tech companies will be funded by their friends and past co-workers. Mostly white males.
there has been a fair amount of research: http://www.calstrs.com/site…
that’s large companies Kid, not startups or VC firms.
Are large companies typically born that way, or do they usually first start as small companies…..Research on small companies is a lot harder to reliably conduct, so public companies are a useful research tool to extrapolate from.
We will have to disagree on scaling the research down in size.At least we agree that there is no research showing that diversity improves small company performance.
“This kind of gender diversity does not happen unless your company makes it a priority in hiring, retention, and culture” Could not agree with this line any more if i tried. As I wrote in a blog post after arguing with some people right here on AVC on diversity a few years back, Change Doesn’t Just Happen. …
Why is that?
Why do i agree or what doesn’t change just happen?
Why doesn’t it just happen? I think it does.
Statistics would prove you otherwise…
Fred’s usual approach – feed from bottom – is the right answer. Change the ratio of the community, don’t favour the minority.
What is weird is this:- it used to be that you hired the hustler, the go-getter, the ( typically, in the last 50 years) guy who wanted the job the most- now, it seems that the best thing you can do is be entitled and visibly a minorityI can’t get my head around it.
James, you aren’t acknowledging the inherent bias that those in dominant positions have had to hire people who look like themselves and promote people who look like themselves. I have seen first hand more qualified (in every respect) people passed over bc the person doing the promoting wanted to hire someone who reminded them of themselves when they were a scrappy young kid.An the truth is, the numbers when it comes to diversity STILL SUCK but I hope they change. So i don’t tell my lovely white 8 year old previously privileged son that he needs to become an entitled visible minority and oh woah is you – I tell him – you are going to have to compete on YOUR MERITS. Ten years ago, you woulda likely gotten the job even if you weren’t as good as some other people. Now you are going to have to be the best, the smartest, work harder etc. And if that doesn’t work, just as it didn’t work say fuck it and start your own thing. Don’t let other people get in the way of your success.
Those people are tools.The numbers still suck primarily because not enough women or minorities have the access to hire people like themselves ( you don’t actually think they will hire on merit, do you?)Not hiring on merit is still stupid, regardless of why you do it.
Well i do (hire on merit) and I’m pretty sure that the next generation is about a 1000% better than the last …
Oh come on Leigh.Millenials are emotion & symbolism based, completely lost on principles and perspective.When gender identituy is your great cause and saving the planet is a protest, not a solution based movement, you are a goonfest of a generation. Hopeffully the generation after will be able to undo their actions.Our current PM is their poster boy: self involved, A++ on symbolism / emotional manipulation, ethically oblivious and fiscally irresponsible to the extreme.I am sure YOU hire on merit, but the PM doesn’t……..just ask Maryam Monsef.
Well i’m not that happy with Justin at the moment (electoral reform, and i wish he would stop being in social media and go to work). But I have a different perspective on Millennials that would be more than a post on AVC. Maybe we’ll have to do a AVC meet up in Toronto some time and argue in person!
We get arguing JT, we will be at it a long time, given the difference in our natures.For me, the death of electoral reform was welcome. I won’t get into it, but FPTP is the healthy voting style for a parliamentary system.And yes, he thinks killing he PR part of the job makes him a great PM. What a joke.
Etsy does all the progressive/diversity/virtue signaling BS and even allows people who need to use the restroom to select their gender. Yet their stock is down 65% since the IPO and they operate in the red. How has this focus on diversity helped their business?
See my comment regarding Trudeau’s cabinet.
CONTRIBUTORS:Fearless Girl Statute installed in front of Bull on Wall street by State Street Global Advisors (2.5 Trillion under management) is putting a heavy voice in coaxing change in the boardroom.http://www.latimes.com/busi…
Fred, much respect for your views. However, would you recommend to a startup that you have funded to wait to hire a good candidate that brings much needed diversity, or hire another good candidate available now (hiring of whom will further emphasize the lack of diversity in said startup) especially if it is impacting their business/growth? I think a lot of people would like diversity and will try to do whatever they can to promote it, but sometimes urgent business goals get in the way…
Diversity is just politically correct, it is good business practice.If you take 100 candidates and you are after talented dynamic people to join the team then:rule out women you are down to 50rule out anyone who is not vanilla hetero you are down to 40rule out anyone of color you are down to 25etc etc etcPretty soon your TARP (total available recruiting pool) is down to 10-20 and who’s to say it includes the talent.Furthermore, create an environment where it’s all about the work and your colleagues and you receive in return low turnover and dedication.It’s a no brainer.But don’t tell anyone. When I was hiring on this basis many years ago, this simple insight was a secret weapon.
This advice is written to men as the obvious leaders re what they can do and what they “let women” do, though what about the women reading this, as leaders building a company or as employees?
thanks for posting. have you considered taking the pledge to increase panel diversity? http://www.genderavenger.co…
This is a super article and the comments are even more interesting, especially the gender split in them and strong opinions. I think it’s great to encourage female participation at a partner level and seek out candidates, which is obviously very hard given the pipeline. Merit + best fit for the role is obviously always the deciding factor and every meritorious + hardworking person, irrespective of their gender, will try to bring in the best returns for the firm. Also as response to a few comments – if at entry level positions, we do not see a big difference in performance among genders, there is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case at partner level. The hiring process may take a long time but encouraging women to apply is a good signal for candidates applying that this is a firm that they will feel at par with colleagues and be welcomed. (given the turmoil tech is in currently, i think culture of a firm is a deciding factor for applicants as well)
Excellent comment Surabhi!
Hiring a woman sounds like a great idea, Fred.
It is also appalling to me (but not surprising) how many men in this thread assume that men are better decision makers, better for business, and that this is not a pragmatic choice. It implies that they genuinely believe that women are inferior professionally–especially in this field.
Where do you get that? Men and women are different; neither is better.
There is something about the idea of diversity that riles some people.Maybe one reason is that it seems unfair that someone would be given special treatment for something other than merit.Well, yes, it is. But it is so easy to protest this when you have benefited from generations of this unfair treatment — of others.There is diversity as a social justice issue and diversity as a means to a practical end.I have bought into the idea that there are some *ends* that will be greater when diversity of input is part of the means. I believe there are some possibilities that we have not yet realized and some ways in which we have unknowingly “settled” for less than what is possible.There you have it, deep thoughts by Donna White.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…