All too often, diversity, especially in venture, is treated as a statistic.
Equally concerning, when diversity mandates or targets are not met, it is diverse *founders* who are unfairly blamed — for not reaching out to enough investors or for not being “qualified” enough for investment.
As investors, the onus lies on us to look inwards and critically reflect on our sourcing and due diligence practices. Are there certain patterns or biases that are causing us to overlook or filter out diverse founders?
If our current sourcing methods are not attracting as many diverse founders as we like, the issue is not with those founders. Investors, as a whole, need to recognize that our existing networks are catered towards certain types of entrepreneurs, so we end up missing other talented entrepreneurs who don’t fit our predetermined “types.”
It’s essential to cast as wide of a net as possible, in order to meet as many potential founders as possible.
Some underrepresented founders experience significant challenges preventing them from accessing typical mainstream networks. We can expand our current networks by redefining what our traditional go-to definition of a network is. This includes being more open to founders who are earlier on in their careers, screening cold emails, partnering with startup accelerators with a high proportion of minority founders, etc.
Valuing entrepreneurs from unconventional experiences allows us to welcome diverse founders who may not fit the cookie-cutter professional journey. Incorporating inclusivity into the language we use to describe our firms, our investment theses, and how we support our existing founders allow us to encourage talented, underrepresented founders to join us at an earlier stage.
In every possible interaction or touchpoint with a founder, “diversity” should never be treated as a separate bucket or checkbox. Diversity is synonymous with talent.
Founders—what are ways that investors can best welcome, understand, and support you? Let the investor community know below.
