Ellen Pao - D.F.A., or Please Do, #11:
Ellen Pao - D.F.A., or Please Do, #11:
In this issue: Ellen Pao's insights on Project Include, sexual harassment in VC, and Reddit's pivotal choices. Also, our perspective on WFH exposing leadership flaws. Dive in! 🚀
I was first introduced to Ellen Pao a few years after she joined Kleiner Perkins, nearly 15 years ago. To watch her career grow and develop since then, as not only a CEO, but also as a leader and investor, has been something to behold. The thing that really stands out in Pao’s career that a lot of people in Silicon Valley do not know about, is her pioneering stance against revenge porn, which happened nearly a decade ago.
Ellen, you've been a vocal advocate for diversity and inclusion, especially through your initiative, Project Include. For our readers who may not be familiar, could you elaborate on the mission of Project Include and some key achievements you're particularly proud of?
Project Include’s mission is to give everyone a fair chance to succeed in tech. We are a non-profit that uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry. In the early days of the pandemic, we researched the impact of Covid on the work environment in a report called, “Remote Work since Covid is Exacerbating Harm,” highlighting the types of harm, who gets harmed most, and, importantly, actions companies should take to decrease and prevent harm. We followed up with more detailed analysis of harm to disabled workers, to contract workers, and to transgender and gender nonbinary workers. Hearing about companies and leaders who have used our recommendations to improve their work environments has been hugely rewarding.
One thing that I’ve always wondered, not only from your time in VC, but before you worked in venture capital, is when you size up an angel investment, is whether you have a formal process or if there are a series of qualities that you look for in a founder, or a co-founding team.
I really look for a problem that is being solved or situation they are trying to improve that is meaningful and significant. It doesn’t have to be a $10B solution, but it has to be a solution that will have a meaningful impact on a business or individual that can create a lasting enduring relationship. I love working with entrepreneurs who are problem solvers and optimists. They may not have all the answers, but they are thoughtful in how they do their jobs and lead their teams. They are not afraid of change or being wrong, because they want to get to the best solution and outcome and they are eager to learn and improve in that process.
Given the challenges in the funding market, especially for female and gender nonbinary founders and for founders who are Black and Latinx, what advice or strategies would you recommend to founders seeking venture capital backing in today's environment, specifically in pre-seed and seed stages?
A lot of it is to keep doing what they’ve been great at doing. The founders from historically marginalised backgrounds that I’ve funded or know have been disciplined in their spending and focused on revenues and getting to breakeven. They haven’t had the luxury of unlimited funding ever in their experiences, and they have made every dollar count. That leadership and fiscal responsibility are really important in a more difficult funding market.
Your lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins did not succeed in court, but many, including me, view it as a brilliant failure that cast a spotlight on Silicon Valley's hiring and promotion practices. Reflecting back, how do you perceive the ripple effects of your lawsuit over the past decade, especially in how tech firms address gender equity?
The two biggest impacts of the lawsuit, in my view, are a change in attitude or framing, and an embarrassment at the terrible demographics in tech. Before the suit, people were more reluctant to talk about their experiences with discrimination and sexism. So many people reached out to tell me how they had never shared their experiences of harassment and bias with anyone else–including their husbands–because they felt ashamed as if they caused it or deserved it. The press came out hard on me, but now they are less willing to attack plaintiffs and other people who call out harm. And more people are willing to stand up for themselves and others by telling their stories publicly or in court.
Companies and VC firms have added some women and Black and Latinx and Asian leaders, but they are still far below workplace demographics, and it’s been so slow.
Your 2014 decision to take a stand against revenge porn on Reddit was seen as a pivotal move for online platforms. Reflecting on that decision, how do you think it has influenced subsequent content moderation choices, and how might that experience guide your approach to challenges like the current API controversy?
I really wish it had had a deeper and more lasting influence. We were able to ban revenge porn and other unauthorized photos from reddit in just a day with a handful of people working on it full time. All the other large platforms followed us and were able to enact similar bans in a very short amount of time. We did the same with harassment by banning the five most harassing subreddits. But then other platforms allowed a lot of hate and harassment to flow through their sites from Trump and others, because they brought a lot of engagement. By the time they took action, it was too late and that hate and harassment became normalized and pervasive. The API controversy is another instance of the battle between moderators and Reddit corporate, and it’s not going away anytime soon. We’re now witnessing the rapid deterioration of Twitter, because it doesn’t respect a large set of the people creating content on its platform, and I hope Reddit corporate doesn’t continue down that path.
To learn more about what Ellen Pao is up to, follow Project Include here.
How Fund Managers Can Cut 5 to 11 Weeks from each 100-LP Fundraise
Over the last few years, many investment firms have removed the prospecting function from their workflow, mainly because for every 100-LP fund, not doing prospecting can save the fund 5 to 11 weeks of labor! Below, you can find 10 reasons to streamline the ways your fund works with LPs. Some will increase investor returns, and others will help your team’s work-life balance as well.
Top 10 Reasons to Streamline Your LP Engagement Process:
1. Focus on Quality: Without the initial outreach, you can dedicate more time to preparing for each meeting, ensuring you present your best self.
2. Efficiency: Save between 5 to 11 weeks when engaging with 100 LPs. That's almost three months!
3. Higher Conversion: By focusing on the core activities, you might see a higher conversion rate from meetings to commitments.
4. Less Burnout: Removing the initial stages means less repetitive work, leading to reduced burnout for your team.
5. Allocate Resources Elsewhere: The time saved can be used for other crucial activities, like portfolio management or scouting new investment opportunities.
6. Improved Follow-up: With more time on your hands, you can have a more personalised and effective post-meeting follow-up.
7. Deep Dive: Use the extra time to delve deeper into each potential LP meeting, ensuring you make informed decisions with each LP.
8. Feedback Loop: More time means you can gather feedback after each meeting, refining your approach for future engagements.
9. Relationship Building: Instead of spreading thin over multiple tasks, focus on nurturing and building a strong relationship with each LP.
10. Stay Ahead of the Curve: In the fast-paced world of VC and PE, saving time means staying ahead. Use the streamlined approach to always be one step ahead of the competition.
---
By focusing on what truly matters, you not only save time but also enhance the quality of each engagement. This "Top 10" list highlights the benefits of such an approach.
To learn more, feel free to check out Lead Zeppelin’s pricing page or book an intake call.
The Leadership Reveal: How WFH Exposed the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
When COVID-19 bulldozed into 2020, governments worldwide slammed down lockdowns, and businesses had to think on their feet. One of the most dramatic pivots? The mass migration to remote work. Companies that had never even toyed with the idea of a work-from-home model suddenly had no other choice.
Take Google, for example. They didn't just dip their toes into the remote work pool; they cannonballed in, announcing in July 2020 that their employees would be working from home until at least summer 2021. Twitter pushed the envelope even further, giving their employees the green light to work from home "forever" if they wanted to.
But this shift wasn't just about swapping office desks for kitchen tables. It was a leadership gauntlet. Leaders had to figure out how to manage teams through screens, not conference rooms. They had to grapple with new challenges: keeping teams united, productivity high, creativity flowing, and company culture alive.
As the months rolled on, it became glaringly obvious: the shift to remote work wasn't just a change of scenery. It was a high-powered microscope, zooming in on the strengths and weaknesses of corporate leadership. It stripped leadership down to its bare bones, revealing the quality—or lack thereof—in companies worldwide.
In this post, we're going to dig into how remote work ripped the mask off leadership, the fallout of ineffective leadership in a remote setting, and the traits that set successful leaders apart in this brave new world of work.
The Pre-Pandemic State of Leadership
Before COVID-19 hit, the office environment was the kingdom where leadership ruled.
Take a company like IBM, for example. They had a strong emphasis on in-person collaboration and leadership. Leaders were physically present, walking the halls, dropping by desks, and holding face-to-face meetings. This physical proximity allowed for real-time feedback, immediate problem-solving, and the cultivation of personal relationships.
In this setting, certain leadership styles thrived. The Autocratic style, where leaders make decisions without input from their teams, worked because leaders were physically present to enforce decisions and manage outcomes. Similarly, the Transactional style, which focused on rewards and punishments to motivate employees, could be effective because leaders could closely monitor employee performance.
Then there was the Transformational style, where leaders inspired and motivated teams to exceed their own self-interests for the greater good of the organization. Leaders like Satya Nadella of Microsoft exemplified this style, transforming company culture into one that valued learning and innovation over know-it-all competitiveness.
These leadership styles, among others, had their place and time in the traditional office setting. But when the pandemic hit, and the world went remote, the effectiveness of these styles came under intense scrutiny. The stage had changed, and some conductors struggled to keep the orchestra in tune.
The Shift to Remote Work
COVID-19 didn't just knock on the corporate world's door; it kicked it down. Companies had to scramble, turning living rooms into offices and Zoom calls into boardrooms.
This wasn't just a change of scenery; it was a leadership obstacle course. Keeping teams united, productivity high, and creativity flowing from afar was a tall order.
Take Shopify, a company that went "digital by default," turning 5,000 employees remote almost overnight. They had to rethink everything from communication to collaboration.
And what about Twitter? They gave their employees the option to work from home "forever," a move that required a complete overhaul of their leadership approach. (Interestingly, Shopify's headcount appears to have gone up from 5k to 8.4k since March 2020, whereas Twitter/X seems to have gone from 4900 to 1300)
The old leadership playbook? It didn't work. Autocratic leadership, with its top-down approach, lost its grip when physical oversight became impossible. Transactional leadership, with its reward-punishment system, stumbled when monitoring performance became a game of guesswork.
Instead, leadership styles that championed trust and autonomy took center stage. Laissez-faire leadership, with its hands-off approach, suddenly made sense. Leaders had to trust their teams to deliver without constant surveillance.
Transformational leadership also became a game-changer. Leaders had to rally their teams amidst the pandemic's chaos, fostering unity even when everyone was miles apart.
In a nutshell, remote work didn't just change our workstations; it revolutionized leadership. And it put every leader's effectiveness under the microscope.
[To read the rest of this blog post head over to the Lead Zeppelin blog here.]