The real reason female entrepreneurs get less funding | Dana Kanze

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: SF Huang

This is me at five years old,

這是我五歲的時候，

shortly before jumping into this beautifully still pool of water.

就在我要跳入這池 美麗靜止的水池之前。

I soon find out the hard way that this pool is completely empty

很快地，我用最笨的方式 瞭解到為何泳池中完全沒有人，

because the ice-cold water is near freezing

因為冰冷的水是臨界冰凍狀態，

and literally takes my breath away.

讓我無法呼吸。

Even though I already know how to swim,

雖然我已經會游泳，

I can't get up to the water's surface, no matter how hard I try.

不論我多努力嘗試， 我都無法游到水面。

That's the last thing I remember trying to do before blacking out.

這是我昏過去之前最後的記憶。

Turns out, the lifeguard on duty had been chatting with two girls

後來才知道，我跳入水中時，

執班的救生員正和兩個女孩聊天，

when I jumped in,

and I was soon underwater,

我很快就沉入水中，

so he couldn't actually see or hear me struggle.

所以他並沒有看見或聽見我在掙扎。

I was eventually saved by a girl walking near the pool

最後救了我的， 是一個走過池邊的女孩，

who happened to look down and see me.

她剛好低頭看見我。

The next thing I know, I'm getting mouth-to-mouth

接下來我記得的， 就是被施行口對口人工呼吸，

and being rushed to the hospital to determine the extent of my brain loss.

然後緊急送到醫院 以判斷腦功能的受損程度。

If I had been flailing at the water's surface,

如果我有在水面上拼命揮手，

the lifeguard would have noticed and come to save me.

救生員應該會注意到並把我救起來。

I share this near-death experience because it illustrates

我之所以分享這段瀕死經驗， 是因為它描述了

how dangerous things are when they're just beneath the surface.

眼睛所看不見的 潛藏在表面下的事物有多危險。

Today, I study implicit gender bias in start-ups,

現今，我研究的是新興公司中 內隱的性別偏見，

which I consider to be far more insidious than mere overt bias

我認為這遠比公開毫不隱瞞的偏見， 潛藏著更具破壞性的危害，

for this very same reason.

也是因為同樣的理由。

When we see or hear an investor

當我們看見或聽見一名投資者

behaving inappropriately towards an entrepreneur,

對於一名企業家有不當的行為時，

we're aware of the problem

我們會知道這有問題，

and at least have a chance to do something about it.

且至少有機會可以採取行動來處理。

But what if there are subtle differences

但如果投資者和企業家的

in the interactions between investors and entrepreneurs

互動中存在著可能影響到結果的

that can affect their outcomes,

細微差異，

differences that we're not conscious of,

這種我們難以察覺到的、

that we can't directly see or hear?

無法直接看見或聽見的 差異存在，會如何？

Before studying start-ups at Columbia Business School,

我在哥倫比亞商學院 研究新創公司之前，

I spent five years running and raising money for my own start-up.

花了五年的時間營運 我自己的新創公司並籌錢。

I remember constantly racing around to meet with prospective investors

我還記得當時常常趕場 去見潛在的投資者，

while trying to manage my actual business.

同時還要管理我自己的事業。

At one point I joked that I had reluctantly pitched

有一次，我開玩笑說 我已經很不情願地

each and every family member, friend, colleague, angel investor

向密西西比這一邊的每一位 親戚、朋友、同事、

and VC this side of the Mississippi.

天使投資者及創業投資者， 都竭力推銷過我的公司。

Well, in the process of speaking to all these investors,

在和所有這些投資者談話的過程中，

I noticed something interesting was happening.

我注意到一件有趣的事情。

I was getting asked a very different set of questions than my male cofounder.

我和我的男性共同創辦人 被問到的問題類型非常不同。

I got asked just about everything that could go wrong with the venture

我被問的問題幾乎都是 企業可能營運不順的所有狀況

to induce investor losses,

及如何減輕投資者的損失，

while my male cofounder was asked about our venture's home run potential

而我的男性共同創辦人被問的則是 我們的企業能打出全壘打的潛能，

to maximize investor gains,

及如何極大化投資者的獲利，

essentially everything that could go right with the venture.

基本上就是企業順利營運的所有狀況。

He got asked how many new customers we were going to bring on,

他會被問到我們能引進多少新客戶，

while I got asked how we were going to hang on to the ones we already had.

而我會被問到我們要如何 留住既有的客戶。

Well, as the CEO of the company, I found this to be rather odd.

身為公司的執行長， 我覺得這點挺奇怪的。

In fact, I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

事實上，我真不懂這麼明顯 怎麼會只有我發現。

But I eventually rationalized it by thinking,

但我最終透過想法將其合理化，

maybe this has to do with how I'm presenting myself,

也許那和我展現自己的方式有關，

or it's something simply unique to my start-up.

或者那是我的新創公司獨有的狀況。

Well, years later I made the difficult decision to leave my start-up

多年後，我做出了困難的決定 離開自己的新創公司，

so I could pursue a lifelong dream of getting my PhD.

這樣我才能去追尋一生的 夢想：取得博士學位。

It was at Columbia that I learned about a social psychological theory

在哥倫比亞大學 我學到了一個社會心理學理論，

originated by Professor Tory Higgins called "regulatory focus,"

由托瑞 • 希金斯教授發明， 叫做「調節焦點理論」，

which differentiates between two distinct motivational orientations

它區分出兩種不同的動機導向，

of promotion and prevention.

分別是促進定向和預防定向。

A promotion focus is concerned with gains

促進定向和獲益有關，

and emphasizes hopes, accomplishments and advancement needs,

強調的是希望、成就感和進階需求，

while a prevention focus is concerned with losses

而預防定向則和損失有關，

and emphasizes safety, responsibility and security needs.

強調的是安全、責任以及保障需求。

Since the best-case scenario for a prevention focus

預防定向的最佳情況

is to simply maintain the status quo,

就是僅僅維持現狀，

this has us treading water just to stay afloat,

就是讓我們在踩水時僅能維持漂浮著，

while a promotion focus instead has us swimming in the right direction.

而促進定向則是 要我們游向對的方向。

It's just a matter of how far we can advance.

再來就是我們能夠游多遠的差別了。

Well, I had my very own eureka moment when it dawned on me

我想我找到答案了， 在我開始了解到

that this concept of promotion

這個促進的概念聽起來很像是

sounded a lot like the questions posed to my male cofounder,

我的男性共同創辦人被問的問題，

while prevention resembled those questions asked of me.

而預防則像是我被問的問題。

As an entrepreneurship scholar,

身為企業家精神學者，

I started digging into the research on start-up financing

我開始致力於研究 新創公司的融資情形後，

and discovered there's an enormous gap

發現男性和女性創辦人

between the amount of funds that male and female founders raise.

能募集到的資金有非常大的差距。

Although women found 38 percent of US companies,

雖然美國的公司 有 38% 是由女性所創辦，

they only get two percent of the venture funding.

但她們募得的創投資金卻只有 2%。

I got to thinking:

我忍不住想：

what if this funding gap is not due to any fundamental difference

這種資金的落差並不是因為

男性和女性所創辦的 企業在本質上的差異？

in the businesses started by men and women?

What if women get less funding than men

會不會女性比男性取得更少的資金

due to a simple difference in the questions that they get asked?

僅單純因他們被問的問題有所不同？

After all, when it comes to venture funding,

畢竟，談到創業融資，

entrepreneurs need to convince investors of their start-up's home run potential.

企業家得讓投資者相信 他們的新創公司有全壘打的潛力。

It's not enough to merely demonstrate

單單證明你不會

you're not going to lose your investors' money.

把投資者的錢賠掉是不夠的。

So it makes sense that women would be getting less funding than men

所以，女性比男性 得到更少的資金就可以理解了，

if they're engaging

因為她們遇到的

in prevention as opposed to promotion-oriented dialogues.

都是預防式而非促進式的對談。

Well, I got the chance to test this hypothesis

我得到了一個測試這項假設的機會，

on companies with similar quality and funding needs across all years

選擇了 2010 年在紐約成立的

at the funding competition known as TechCrunch Disrupt

TechCrunch Disrupt，

Startup Battlefield has run in New York City

其在新創公司格鬥場競賽中

since its inception in 2010.

歷年來類似特性和資金需求的公司。

TechCrunch is widely regarded as the ideal place for start-ups to launch,

一般普遍認為 TechCrunch 是新創公司最理想的起始點，

with participants including start-ups that have since become household names,

很多家喻戶曉的新創公司 都是從這裡出發的，

like Dropbox, Fitbit and Mint,

包括 Dropbox、Fitbi 和 Mint，

presenting to some of the world's most prominent VCs.

在這裡，公司能向世上 最重要的創業投資者做簡報。

Well, despite the comparability of companies in my sample,

我樣本中的那些公司雖然都很相似，

male-led start-ups went on to raise five times as much funding

但由男性率領的新創公司 能募集到的資金，

是女性所率領公司的五倍之多。

as the female-led ones.

This made me especially curious to see what's driving this gender disparity.

這讓我特別好奇，想要知道 這種性別差異是什麼造成的。

Well, it took a while,

我花了一點時間，

but I got my hands on all the videos of both the pitches and the Q and A sessions

但我確實從 TechCrunch 拿到了提案簡報

以及問答時間的影片， 抄寫成了文字記錄。

from TechCrunch, and I had them transcribed.

I first analyzed the transcripts

分析文字記錄時，我首先

by loading a dictionary of regulatory-focused terms

把調節焦點術語字典載入

into the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software called LIWC.

「語文探索與字詞計算 （LIWC）」軟體中。

This LIWC software generated the frequencies

LIWC 軟體能夠算出 在文字記錄當中，

of promotion and prevention words in the transcribed text.

促進式和預防式的用字 出現了多少次。

As a second method,

我的第二個方法則是

I had each of the questions and answers manually coded

將每個問題與答案 交給哥倫比亞大學的

by the Tory Higgins Research Lab at Columbia.

托瑞希金斯研究實驗室 做人工編碼。

Regardless of the topic at hand,

不論手邊的主題是什麼，

an intention can be framed in promotion or prevention.

意圖都可以用促進式 或預防式的方式來表達。

Let's take that topic of customers I mentioned briefly earlier.

就用先前簡短提到的 客戶主題來當例子。

A promotion-coded question sounds like,

促進式編碼的問題聽起來會像是：

"How many new customers do you plan to acquire this year?"

「今年你打算得到多少新客戶？」

while a prevention-coded one sounds like,

而預防式編碼的問題則會像是：

"How do you plan to retain your existing customers?"

「你打算如何留住 你既有的客戶？」

During the same time,

同時，

I also gathered background information

我也收集了新創公司 與企業家的背景資訊當中，

on the start-ups and entrepreneurs that can affect their funding outcomes,

可能會影響到募資結果的因素，

like the start-up's age, quality and funding needs

如新創公司的創立時間、 品質及需要的資金，

and the entrepreneur's past experience,

還有企業家過去的經驗，

so I could use these data points as controls in my analysis.

我就能在我的分析當中 用這些資料點來做控制。

Well, the very first thing that I found

我的第一個發現

is that there's no difference in the way entrepreneurs present their companies.

就是企業家為自己的公司 做簡報的方式並沒有不同。

In other words, both male and female entrepreneurs

換言之，男性和女性企業家

use similar degrees of promotion and prevention language

在實際提案時，使用促進式

和預防式表達的程度都差不多。

in their actual pitches.

So having ruled out this difference on the entrepreneur's side,

把企業家這邊的差異性排除之後，

I then moved on to the investor's side,

我接著去研究投資者這一邊，

analyzing the six minutes of Q&A sessions

分析了六分鐘的問答時間，

that entrepreneurs engaged in with the VCs after pitching.

企業家在提案之後要接受 創投者的提問並回答。

When examining the nearly 2,000 questions

在探究近兩千個問題

及相對應的答案時，

and corresponding answers in these exchanges,

both of my methods showed significant support

我的兩種方法都找到了 顯著的證據來證明，

for the fact that male entrepreneurs get asked promotion questions

男性企業家會被問到 促進式的問題，

and female entrepreneurs get asked prevention questions.

女性企業家會被問到 預防式的問題。

In fact, a whopping 67 percent of the questions posed

事實上，向男性企業家 提出的問題中，

有高達 67% 都是促進式的問題，

to male entrepreneurs were promotion-focused,

while 66 percent of those posed to female entrepreneurs were prevention-focused.

而向女性企業家提出的問題中， 66% 都是預防式的問題。

What's especially interesting

有一點特別有趣，

is that I expected female VCs

我本來預期女性創投者

to behave similarly to male VCs.

和男性創投者的行為會類似。

Given its prevalence in the popular media and the venture-funding literature,

因為趨同性的「物以類聚」 理論在大眾媒體

I expected the birds-of-a-feather theory of homophily to hold here,

和創業募資文獻中都很普遍， 我預期它在這裡也會成立，

meaning that male VCs would favor male entrepreneurs

也就是說，男性創投者 會偏好男性企業家，

with promotion questions

問他們促進式的問題，

and female VCs would do the same for female entrepreneurs.

而女性創投者對女性企業家也會如此。

But instead, all VCs displayed the same implicit gender bias

但結果卻是，所有的創投者 都展現出內隱的性別偏見，

manifested in the regulatory focus of the questions they posed

他們問男性和女性的問題 有著不同的調節焦點，

to male versus female candidates.

就說明了這一點。

So female VCs asked male entrepreneurs promotion questions

所以，女性創投者 會問男性企業家促進式的問題，

and then turned around and asked female entrepreneurs prevention questions

轉過身來卻會問女性企業家 預防式的問題，

just like the male VCs did.

男性創投者亦是如此。

So given the fact that both male and female VCs

所以，在男性和女性創投者

are displaying this implicit gender bias,

都會展現出內隱性別偏見的前提下，

what effect, if any, does this have on start-up funding outcomes?

這對於新創公司的募資結果會有 什麼影響（如果有的話）？

My research shows it has a significant effect.

我的研究顯示影響非常顯著。

The regulatory focus of investor questions

從投資者提出的問題 是哪種調節焦點，

not only predicted how well the start-ups would perform

不僅可以預測新創公司

在 TechCrunch Disrupt 的 競賽中表現會如何，

at the TechCrunch Disrupt competitions

but also how much funding the start-ups went on to raise in the open market.

也能預測新創公司 在公開市場中能募得多少資金。

Those start-ups who were asked predominantly promotion questions

被提問的問題絕大多數 是促進式問題的那些新創公司，

went on to raise seven times as much funding

後來募得的資金是被問到 預防式問題公司的七倍。

as those asked prevention questions.

But I didn't stop there.

但我沒有就此罷手。

I then moved on to analyze entrepreneurs' responses to those questions,

我接著分析了企業家 對那些問題的回應，

and I found that entrepreneurs are apt to respond in kind

我發現，企業家通常 會用同樣的方式

to the questions they get,

來回應他們被問的問題，

meaning a promotion question begets a promotion response

意即，問他們促進式問題， 就會得到促進式的回應，

and a prevention question begets a prevention response.

問他們預防式問題， 就會得到預防式的回應。

Now, this might make intuitive sense to all of us here,

我們大家可能會覺得 這樣的狀況在直覺上很合理，

but it has some unfortunate consequences in this context of venture funding.

但在創業募資的情況下， 這會導致不幸的後果。

So what ends up happening

最後發生的狀況是，

is that a male entrepreneur gets asked a promotion question,

男性企業家被問了 一個促進式的問題，

granting him the luxury to reinforce his association

藉由他也用促進式的方式來回應，

with the favorable domain of gains by responding in kind,

強化了他在獲利相關的有利聯想。

while a female entrepreneur gets asked a prevention question

而女性企業家卻會 被問到預防式的問題，

and inadvertently aggravates her association

她們無意間就會用同樣的方式回應，

with the unfavorable domain of losses by doing so.

而加劇了其與損失相關的不利聯想。

These responses then trigger venture capitalists' subsequent biased questions,

這些回應接著會觸發創投者 後續問出帶著偏見的問題，

and the questions and answers collectively fuel a cycle of bias

問題和答案配合起來， 就更加刺激了偏見不斷循環，

that merely perpetuates the gender disparity.

導致持續的性別差異。

Pretty depressing stuff, right?

挺讓人沮喪的，對吧？

Well, fortunately, there's a silver lining to my findings.

幸運的是，在我的發現當中， 還是有一絲希望存在。

Those plucky entrepreneurs who managed to switch focus

有些大膽的企業家能夠轉換定向，

by responding to prevention questions with promotion answers

被問到預防式的問題時， 能給予促進式的答案，

went on to raise 14 times more funding

他們募得的資金， 比那些用預防式答案

than those who responded to prevention questions

來回答的人要高十四倍。

with prevention answers.

So what this means is that if you're asked a question

意思就是，如果你被問的問題

about defending your start-up's market share,

是關於保護你新創公司的市佔率，

you'd be better served to frame your response

那麼你最好在做回應時，

around the size and growth potential of the overall pie

架構出整塊市場大餅的 大小和成長潛力，

as opposed to how you merely plan to protect your sliver of that pie.

而不要只是說你打算如何 捍衛自己的那一塊市場。

So if I get asked this question,

如果我被問到這個問題，我會說：

I would say,

"We're playing in such a large and fast-growing market

「我們身處一個 快速成長的大市場，

that's bound to attract new entrants.

肯定會吸引到新進客戶。

We plan to take increasing share in this market

我們打算發揮自身獨特資產的

by leveraging our start-up's unique assets."

槓桿效應來增加總市佔率。」

I've thus subtly redirected this dialogue into the favorable domain of gains.

我這就很巧妙地將對話轉向

大家都愛的獲利領域了。

Now, these results are quite compelling among start-ups that launched at TechCrunch

就 TechCrunch 的新興公司來看， 這些結果還蠻讓人信服的，

but field data can merely tell us that there's a correlational relationship

但實際資料只能夠告訴我們，

調節焦點和募資之間有相關性。

between regulatory focus and funding.

So I sought to see whether this difference in regulatory focus

所以我便開始探究調節焦點的差異，

can actually cause funding outcomes

是否真的會造成不同的募資結果。

by running a controlled experiment

我的做法是進行實驗，

on both angel investors and ordinary people.

控制的變數為天使投資者和一般人。

Simulating the TechCrunch Disrupt environment,

模擬 TechCrunch Disrupt 的環境，

I had participants listen to four six-minute audio files

我請受試者聽四個 六分鐘的錄音檔案，

of 10 question-and-answer exchanges

內容是十個問答的交流，

that were manipulated for promotion and prevention language,

且刻意以促進式和預防式穿插的方式，

and then asked them to allocate a sum of funding

接著，再請他們把一筆資金

依他們認為妥當的方式 分配給這些公司。

to each venture as they saw fit.

Well, my experimental results reinforced my findings from the field.

我的實驗結果支持 我資料分析發現的現象。

Those scenarios where entrepreneurs were asked promotion questions

用促進式問題來問企業家的那些情境，

received twice the funding allocations

被分配的到資金比起

用預防式問題來問的情境要高出一倍。

of those where entrepreneurs were asked prevention questions.

What's especially promising

令人覺得振奮的一點是，

is the fact that those scenarios where entrepreneurs switched

那些被問到預防式問題

as opposed to matched focus when they received prevention questions

卻能夠轉換成 促進式回答的企業家們，

received significantly more funding from both sets of participants.

他們募得的資金明顯較多， 兩組受試者皆是如此。

So to my female entrepreneurs out there,

所以，如果你是女性企業家，

here are a couple simple things you could do.

有幾件簡單的事情是你可以做的。

The first is to recognize the question you're being asked.

第一，要去辨識別人問你的問題。

Are you getting a prevention question?

你被問的是預防式的問題嗎？

If this is the case, answer the question at hand by all means,

如果是的話，盡可能 去回答那個問題，

but merely frame your response in promotion

但只能用促進式的方式來回應，

in an effort to garner higher amounts of funding for your start-ups.

這樣才為能你的新創公司 獲得更多資金。

The unfortunate reality, though,

不過，有個不幸的事實，

is that both men and women evaluating start-ups

那就是負責評估 新創公司的男性和女性

display the same implicit gender bias in their questioning,

在提問時同樣都呈現出 內隱的性別偏見，

inadvertently favoring male entrepreneurs over female ones.

不自覺就會比較偏好 男性企業家而非女性。

So to my investors out there,

所以，如果你是投資者，

I would offer that you have an opportunity here

我想跟你說的是，你可以試著

to approach Q&A sessions more even-handedly,

更公平地進行問答時間，

not just so that you could do the right thing,

這樣你不僅能做對的事，

but so that you can improve the quality of your decision making.

也能夠改善你的決策品質。

By flashing the same light on every start-up's potential

對於每一間新創公司獲利和損失的

可能性都平等看待，

for gains and losses,

you enable all deserving start-ups to shine

你就是讓所有值得資助的 新創公司有發光的機會，

and you maximize returns in the process.

過程中你也會讓收益達到最高。

Today, I get to be that girl

今天，我能夠扮演那個

walking by the pool,

走過游泳池邊的女孩，

sounding the alarm

發出警報，

that something is going on beneath the surface.

通知大家在水面下有狀況。

Together, we have the power to break this cycle

我們一起努力， 就有能力打破新創公司

of implicit gender bias in start-up funding.

募資時遇到的內隱性別偏見循環。

Let's give the most promising start-ups,

讓我們給予前景 最看好的新創公司，

regardless of whether they're led by men or women,

不論其領導人是男性或女性，

a fighting chance to grow and thrive.

給予它們放手一搏的機會， 去成長、去茁壯。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）