The non-risk-adjusted RoR through mid-2013 for VCs was 7.8%; the S&P (the market) was up 7.3%. The VC investment was far more risky (obviously).
The LPs (limited partners) have to cough up two and twenty of their investment (MPs take 2% of AUM as a fee and 20% of profits over some threshold return like, say, 6%). So they're not even seeing that highly-volatile, high-risk 7.8% anyway.
It would be an interesting research project over time to see if a culture of decent, respectful relations and manners led to the same or better VC investment returns.
'Confidence-driven' is a misnomer, if you're a loud b.s. artist with money, BAM you're 'owning the room' ?, shutting down introverts with potentially great ideas.
Pao has great academic credentials but comes from an easy-going, somewhat passive culture, shutting down such people with a crappy 'confidence driven' workplace may be a detriment to the LPs who overpay VCs to make investments based on loudmouths and interrupters. Sheesh what a dumb environment.
Most of us doubt that the only good investment ideas come from big mouths who are skilled at shutting (shouting?) down others.
What has to happen is there has to be near unanimous backlash against loud b.s. talking assholes. Silence and pause often is interpreted as agreement.
In other words unless the environment of respect and normal discussion is not defended it will end up being dominated by a few assholes. I've seen in this meetings most often, you've seen it too.
They dynamic is often interesting to observe. Get enough people in a meeting and you'll see it. Normal meeting agenda devolves into bikesheeding and the tempers get hotter over which color the buttons should be. Those in charge will always say something. Because if they don't they often can't justify their leadership position. There is a little part of the their brain says "How can I just sit here. I am paid 3x these people, I am supposed to lead, I better say something forceful and impactful". -- "No, no, the button is the wrong shade of green".
It is also interesting how there are "body languages how to own the room and project confidence" tips. Stuff like "Lean forward, extend the fingers if your hands, touch the tips of fingers of one hand with corresponding fingers on the other hand". I saw someone try those tips ones. They were just going through a list of those things, because they've probably read them in book. It looked very artificial and forced, and instead of projecting confidence it projected, well... the opposite.
You can be as loud an asshat as you like, but if your opinions disagree with experimental results, tough.
Of course you can still be a loud asshat and right but that's a different class of problem.
This is basically every VC out there who maintains a social media presence. They just shout and scream how great the teams/products they just invested in. As if yelling and screaming will force these ventures to success.
Thre was no substance to any rethink besides an example of disallowing interruption at a writers' meeting. I'd like to see the results of a study focused on the promotional outcome of women and less assertive men in an environment which stresses actual ability over politics.
On the other hand, when competing against outside companies your firm will likely want to have the advantage of perceived ability (type a personalities) when the decision makers make decisions based on these expectations in the dealmaking processes.
I don't understand what about a VC workplace would require such aggressive, combative meetings. What does that accomplish that a more thoughtful meeting could not? Why can't meetings just slow down a bit and make sure everyone has the time and opportunity to say what they think?
And if they don't care what a particular person thinks, why did they invite that person to the meeting in the first place?
On a somewhat related not, it helps to remeber the 'con' in 'con man' refers to the word 'confidence'. Confidence is not necessarily a good personal value.