Kamala, Lead On

You may have noticed that LinkedIn is flooded with posts supporting Kamala Harris, some from men, but the vast majority from women. Inevitably, you will also see comments from people (mostly men) admonishing the poster that politics doesn’t belong on a professional social platform like LinkedIn. I likely would have agreed until Roe v. Wade was overturned. I began to understand on a much deeper level that government policies on paid family leave, access to affordable daycare, eldercare, and reproductive rights all have a direct effect on our careers.

But I digress.?

The Kamala Effect

The reason why there is an outpouring of support for Kamala Harris on LinkedIn is that almost every professional woman identifies with her. She is educated, experienced, passionate, and ambitious. Ooo, and it’s that last word that gets us into trouble. Women in leadership positions are criticized for being ambitious. Men with ambition are admired; women with ambition are disliked. Men with decisive leadership styles are seen as effective; women with strong leadership styles are called bossy. To advance up the proverbial ladder, we need to show strength, but when we do, we are suddenly labeled as difficult. If only we would just defer and demur more. It’s called the double bind, and Black women are especially at risk—you can guess why. And now we have a Black woman about to break the highest glass ceiling of all. Yes, we are all just a little excited.

We are also angry at the attacks against her. No matter how accomplished a woman is—or maybe because she is accomplished—we can expect a tsunami of criticism. We see her accused of “sleeping her way” to higher positions, with profane images accompanying the slander. We see her identity questioned in a way that notable mixed-race men’s identities have never been. We see her criticized for laughing too much. (You can’t make this stuff up.)

It reminds us of the iconic monologue from the Barbie movie. “We have to always be extraordinary but somehow always doing it wrong.” That speech resonated hard with every woman. If you have never heard the monologue, click here now to watch. It’s a masterclass in double standards.

It seems I have digressed even more.

When Women Lead

So, let’s roll this back. To put it more simply, Kamala Harris represents hope for the future of professional women. Hope that we can attain the highest positions. We are educated. We are ambitious. We can lead. We have been patient (perhaps too patient). Kamala has given us back the promise of success in a matrixed environment. We have been waiting a long time.

But it’s not that we’ve been busy at the nail salon. More and more women have opted out of waiting and have been busy building companies.

During the pandemic, women launched more businesses than they closed, growing their overall revenue, while the number of male-owned businesses shrank. These businesses added 1.4 million jobs and $579.6 billion to the economy. Not bad for a bunch of bossy broads, many of whom simultaneously became homeschool parents trying their best to be educators, in addition to keeping their bored-silly children interested in some kind of activity that didn’t involve the usual go-to's like playdates and sports lessons.

But you know what? The pandemic offered up a silver lining, as disruptions often do. Rather than commuting to offices and navigating the myriad harassments, microaggressions, and performance improvement plans about their personalities, women took their best bet yet: the bet on themselves.

From 2019 to 2023, the number of women-owned businesses grew at a rate almost double that of men. In addition to the number of businesses, they have also surpassed the growth rates of their male counterparts in workforce size by 252% and revenue by 80%. The rate of growth for new female-founded companies continues to be strong, over double that of our counterparts, and we are now contributing almost $3 trillion to the U.S. economy.

That tells me we are in a full-on pivot away from trying to fulfill our professional potential within a system not built for us, and are instead creating one that has unlimited potential—not just for ourselves, but for society— economically, culturally, and innovatively.

Investment in Female Founders Is Not a Pretty Picture

Female founders are underestimated and underfunded, as are other underrepresented groups. We see he majority of growth in women-owned businesses is mostly in categories that require little capital.

Why? Take a wild guess.

Female founders currently receive less than 2% of venture capital in the U.S. (Team up with a man, and you are more likely to increase access to 20% of venture capital.)

The bias is undeniable.

• An MIT study shows that white good-looking men are more likely than any other demographic to get funded with all other factors being equal.?
• A McKinsey study found that the factors that influence investor bias are identity, gender, ethnic background, and…. the presence (or absence) of a white, cisgender man on the leadership team. As only 4.9% of VC partners are female, these factors make funding of women onerous.
• Female and male founders are asked different questions. Female founders are asked “prevention” questions and male founders asked “promotion” questions. In other words, male founders are funded based on their potential while female founders are assumed to carry disproportionate risk.

Investing in female founders boosts returns and innovation. When women do receive investment from venture capitalists, they receive on average a disparity of more than $1 million per investment, yet deliver twice the revenue on every dollar invested. Investing in women and other underrepresented founders increases innovation to meet underserved markets. Tapping into different life experiences and perspectives means access to bigger markets.

So why don’t VC's invest in female founders more? The fraction of funding is particularly puzzling. Puzzling is not the right word; let’s call it what it is: discriminatory. It is long past time that VC's take a closer look in the mirror, swallow hard, and decide to invest in women. If not for the better financial outcomes (which presumably is at the heart of what they do), then for the promise of greater innovation, and perhaps the most compelling reason of all: the futures of their sisters, nieces, and daughters.

There is little public discussion on LinkedIn from male VC's about the disparity in funding—and trust me, I look for it every day. In a case of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, ignoring the problem is not a good look. And what is also telling is that the women commenting on the viral posts of (male) VC influencers tiptoe very gently, asking politely what “founders” need to do better to shorten the time to funding. Hmmm, I wonder.

Women Are Driving Transformative Change.?

In an EY-sponsored report on the societal impact of women-led businesses, reveals that the majority of women entrepreneurs integrate purpose with financial goals. This manifests not necessarily in terms of the products they are building but in their HR practices, community outreach, and product design. It’s not the what; it’s the how. Diversity, sustainability, and impact are all part of their quest.

The same report cites 美国哈佛商学院 research finding that female founders are more likely to receive funding when their pitches directly reference components of intended social impact. Perhaps because it aligns nicely with gender norms. Whatever the reason, women take note.

Imagine how much greater our impact could be with more equitable funding.

The Promise

Despite not being invested in, women are leading. They are doing more with less. Raising less money, they are becoming better business managers and driving societal change to boot.

We are building companies that are building a better world. Call it collective compassion. We want success but not at the expense of others. In fact we want success as much for others as we do for ourselves.

Our power is evident, but so are the forces that threaten or slow our success.

If women were funded at the same rates as men, and their average yearly revenue had a chance to catch up, we would add an additional $7.9 trillion to our economy. That’s a lot of jobs, and a lot of global spending power.

Women’s empowerment has a direct line to the economic health of our country, the health and safety of our families, and democracy itself.

It’s imperative to raise awareness of gender inequities everywhere. So that women are more easily funded and championed. That access to reproductive care and rights is restored. (Why do men get to make decision about our reproductive rights?) That men speak up for women when we are not in the rooms where decisions about our futures are made and opportunities presented.

We are fighters. We know that when half of humanity can grow faster and go farther, the whole world wins.

Kamala, lead on.

P.S. If you found this article inspiring or helpful, please consider sharing.

Links

Fortune Magazine: Why Women Entrepreneurs Outperform Men

Fortune Magazine: The Importance of Supporting Female-Led Businesses

Boston Consulting Group: Why Women-Owned Startups Are a Better Bet

WIPP Education Group: Exponential impact: a study on societal value of women-led businesses

WIPP Education Group: The 2024 Impact of Women-Owned Businesses

Harvard Business Review: Male and Female Entrepreneurs Get Asked Different Questions by VCs — and It Affects How Much Funding They Get

Harvard Business Review: Women Entrepreneurs Are More Like to Get Funding if They Emphasize Their Social Mission.

Foreign Affairs: Revenge of the Patriarchs: Why Autocrats Fear Women

MIT News: Study: Attractive men fare best in gaining venture capital

McKinsey: Underestimated start-up founders: The untapped opportunity