Selling justice like Gatorade, as a performance enhancer

 

As I’ve come to think about it, since I learned how quotas fit in historically, I think it’s like this: you can push ceilings all you want, and show why things should change, and then you just have to break those ceilings with something like a quota. People in power don’t just give it up after thinking about it when you explain it to them, or so says Dr. King as I read him. This has got to be sort of like that, I think.

 

And I don’t think guys are resisting out of an unwillingness; it’s more a blind leather recliner chair and a beer kind of bias; we just get focused on the game we are playing the way we play it. This is a hard thing for most guys to get their heads around, at first. It’s hard to see that it’s a real problem and that just consciously thinking better thoughts, or having better attitudes sort of makes things change. In fact, the selection process is skewed in ways we are blind to and we well meaning white boys just don’t seem to see it. I probably don’t see them either; so if I were in their shoes I’d be thinking I’m going to do it right, as most of the guys choosing entrepreneurs did in those accelerators. They probably all thought they were unbiased modern men.

 

The results say we, I, have a bias that is leading to lower portfolio company performance in our selection criteria; a bias we can’t see. As a matter of fiduciary responsibility, we then just need to set in place a quota to make sure we are selecting the highest performing group whose value we, guys and the people on these selection committees, some women of whom are women, can’t clearly see. We need to do this through an artificially instituted changing of the selection criteria to do what the data says to do but that we don’t seem to be able to do on our own. This is a crutch to help guys achieve better portfolio performance, a guide for a blind man. Guys are built for comfort. Changing big rules like this is worse than going shopping with your wife or girlfriend.

 

Then we are looking to lateral relational value, with vendors, customers, employees and the community, which I write about on our site. for the areas where we think we will find that extra financial value.

http://socialcapitalmarkets.net/idea/gender-lens-investing/

 

I think a series of global Google hangouts, phased up to SOCAP13, along with maybe some physical meetings at our Hubs would accelerate this idea. The Hubs around the world could get involved, maybe. This is a seriously challenging idea to guys. The former head of the Santa Fe Institute contacted me to explain how unjust this was, how unfair, possibly illegal. I told him male privilege was not enshrined into law, just country club rules. That, I am told is my message in this mix; a guy can say that line while a woman can not. So I say that line, then talk about what the numbers say, then explain my action as I scope out the next fund I’m going to be involved in, and offer this quota as a possible piece of impact investing infrastructures to others doing early stage funds. Only use this tool if you want to beat the other boys is the way we might play it for them. Guys, using the quota is like taking a performance enhancing substance, like steroids. Except it’s not. Compare the financial performance of funds that used it against those that didn’t. Gender lens quotas: a tool for winners. Be the best fund manager you can be. Use a gender lens quota. Sell justice like Gatorade. It could spawn have its own line of deodorants and personal care items. Yes, I am wearing True Justice, the quota cologne, do you like it?

When you design the system correctly, justice is just a positive externality. I think our selection process is flawed, too, in what we look at from the standpoint of company performance; seeing the enterprise as an island rather than situated in a community. Looking at relational value, as the SOCAPOpen entry suggests, is an attempt to design something new into the criteria; new places to check under the hood, new methods to refine the site on your hunting rifle, a new way to sharpen your warrior blade. We will be looking for the bonus in places most funders don’t look, in feedback loops that create financial value through trusted, mutually value creating relationships. And I think that approach will outperform what the existing research shows. I think we will be above baseline, that this approach will outperform its peers.

The data says this is the path to higher performing fund portfolios. There are, of course, other reasons to do this. But it’s interesting you can argue from that perspective. I am not suggesting that higher financial performance is my reason for doing this. But when I saw the data I saw this as a lever to change some things. I’m not sure if it’s moral strength as a quota is weakened or strengthened by the fact that it is eminently practical and should lead to investors making more money; enriching the already rich, unless we change the dynamics around that in this fund.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 responses to “Selling justice like Gatorade, as a performance enhancer

  1. I think gender is just one bias area. There’s a lot of bias out there, and I’m sure you know this, Kevin. I’d just like to add on to the gender lens starting point.

    Having a perceived disability hurts the person on the wrong side of the opportunity ecosystem. Anyone, male or female, starting out in poverty is at massive disadvantage. A woman on an accelerator jury can have a subjective bias against a guy with a great idea, but who may be old or just isn’t her psychological mirror of a ‘winner’. And certainly women get all kinds of junk thrown at them.

    I say altogether it’s good you are trying to set a fair chessboard… but the system is seriously bolloxed in terms of opportunity access from multiple directions, as you know, Kevin. That’s really true if one’s DNA forces them to innovate in a world where, for example, technology competency, running a profitable business and/or acquired wealth is bias lens seen as qualification for ‘innovator’ monikers.

    Poor people with next to nothing innovate. Women and men.

    I think its case by case and there can be a hundred factors divided by dozens individual and group issues in an Innovation and Opportunity Ecosystem (IOE) reform matrix for purposes of developing new and renewing disadvantaged individual and micro-community strategies and business models. Access to startup capital (ecosystem capital flow) is just one innovation priority:

    http://www.innovograph.com/ig-blog/innovographs-socap-open-rsvp/

    Eventually choosing which rich people to help engage with in terms of social innovation education programming, folks who may be becoming more and more desperate to redeem themselves and a world of structural sin, will be a selection and velocity/scale challenge… we can hope.

  2. I think gender is just one bias area. There’s a lot of bias out there, and I’m sure you know this, Kevin. I’d just like to add on to the gender lens starting point.

    Having a perceived disability hurts the person on the wrong side of the opportunity ecosystem. Anyone, male or female, starting out in poverty is at massive disadvantage. A woman on an accelerator jury can have a subjective bias against a guy with a great idea, but who may be old or just isn’t her psychological mirror of a ‘winner’. And certainly women get all kinds of junk thrown at them.

    I say altogether it’s good you are trying to set a fair chessboard… but the system is seriously bolloxed in terms of opportunity access from multiple directions, as you know, Kevin. That’s really true if one’s DNA forces them to innovate in a world where, for example, technology competency, running a profitable business FIRST and/or already having self-acquired wealth is bias lens seen as qualification for ‘innovator’ monikers.

    Poor people with next to nothing innovate. Women and men. But they are disqualified as being legitimate players by many… I think even those often trying to aid the poor.

    I think its case by case and there can be a hundred factors divided by dozens individual and group issues in an Innovation and Opportunity Ecosystem (IOE) reform matrix for purposes of developing new and renewing disadvantaged individual and micro-community strategies and business models. Access to startup capital (ecosystem capital flow) is just one innovation priority:

    http://www.innovograph.com/ig-blog/innovographs-socap-open-rsvp/

    Eventually choosing which rich people to help engage with in terms of social innovation education programming, folks who may be becoming more and more desperate to redeem themselves and a world of structural sin, will be a selection and velocity/scale challenge… we can hope.

    WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s