评论
打印
This is me at five years old, shortly before jumping into this beautifully still pool of water.
这是5岁时候的我，是在跳进那个美丽的水池前拍的。
I soon find out the hard way that this pool is completely empty
我很快就发现这个水池根本就没有人，
because the ice-cold water is near freezing and literally takes my breath away.
因为冰冷的水已经快要结冰了，几乎要了我的命。
Even though I already know how to swim, I can't get up to the water's surface, no matter how hard I try.
尽管我当时已经学会了游泳，我还是没办法浮上水面，不管多努力挣扎都不行。
That's the last thing I remember trying to do before blacking out.
而这就是我昏迷前记得的最后一件事。
Turns out, the lifeguard on duty had been chatting with two girls when I jumped in,
事后才知道，当时值班的救生员在我跳下去的时候正在跟两个女孩子聊天，
and I was soon underwater, so he couldn't actually see or hear me struggle.
而我又很快沉到水面以下了，所以他根本看不见也听不见我的呼救。
I was eventually saved by a girl walking near the pool who happened to look down and see me.
最后我被刚好路过池边的一个女孩救了，她刚巧看了一眼水面于是发现了我。
The next thing I know, I'm getting mouth-to-mouth and being rushed to the hospital to determine the extent of my brain loss.
后面我知道的的事就是，我接受了人工呼吸，然后很快被送进医院，检查脑损伤程度。
If I had been flailing at the water's surface, the lifeguard would have noticed and come to save me.
如果我能挣扎着浮上水面，救生员就能看到并过来救我。
I share this near-death experience because it illustrates how dangerous things are when they're just beneath the surface.
我跟大家分享这次靠近死神的经验，是为了说明水面以下的东西有多危险。
Today, I study implicit gender bias in start-ups,
现在，我正在研究创业公司中的隐形性别偏见问题，
which I consider to be far more insidious than mere overt bias for this very same reason.
也因为这个原因，我认为这种隐性的偏见比明面上的偏见要可怕得多。
When we see or hear an investor behaving inappropriately towards an entrepreneur,
如果我们看见或是听见一位投资人对某位创业者做出了不合适的举动，
we're aware of the problem and at least have a chance to do something about it.
我们可以很明显的看到这个问题，至少我们可以去做点什么去阻止。
But what if there are subtle differences in the interactions between investors and entrepreneurs that can affect their outcomes,
但如果这种可以影响谈判结果的微小的差异仅发生在投资人和创业者之间的交谈中，
differences that we're not conscious of, that we can't directly see or hear?
并且这种差异我们意识不到，或无法直接看到和听到呢？
Before studying start-ups at Columbia Business School, I spent five years running and raising money for my own start-up.
在哥伦比亚商学院开始研究创业企业之前，我曾花了五年时间为我的公司奔走集资。
I remember constantly racing around to meet with prospective investors while trying to manage my actual business.
我记得一边努力管理着自己的公司，一边四处奔走着去见我的潜在投资人们。
At one point I joked that I had reluctantly pitched each and every family member,
我曾开玩笑说我几乎找遍了我的每一位家人，
friend, colleague, angel investor and VC this side of the Mississippi.
朋友，同事，天使投资人，还有密西西比河西岸的所有风险投资人。
Well, in the process of speaking to all these investors, I noticed something interesting was happening.
在跟这些投资商的交谈过程中，我发现了一些有趣的东西。
I was getting asked a very different set of questions than my male cofounder.
我被问到的问题，跟我的男性联合创始人伙伴被问到的问题完全不同。
I got asked just about everything that could go wrong with the venture to induce investor losses,
我被问到的都是有关投资出错，给投资人造成损失之类的问题，
while my male cofounder was asked about our venture's home run potential to maximize investor gains,
而我的男性联合创始人被问到的都是有关于怎样运营资本来扩大投资人的收益，
essentially everything that could go right with the venture.
基本都是跟资本相关的正面问题。
He got asked how many new customers we were going to bring on,
问他的是会吸引多少新用户，
while I got asked how we were going to hang on to the ones we already had.
问我的则是我们如何留住老用户。
Well, as the CEO of the company, I found this to be rather odd.
作为公司的CEO，我觉得这件事很奇怪。
In fact, I felt like I was taking crazy pills.
事实上，我感觉自己可能是吃了什么致幻剂。
But I eventually rationalized it by thinking,
但我最终通过思考使之合理化，
maybe this has to do with how I'm presenting myself, or it's something simply unique to my start-up.
也许这种结果跟我表达自己的有关，或者这种现象仅仅是针对我的公司。
Well, years later I made the difficult decision to leave my start-up
几年之后我做了一个艰难的决定，那就是决定离开我的企业，
so I could pursue a lifelong dream of getting my PhD.
这样我就能追寻我一生的梦想，也就是拿到博士学位。
It was at Columbia that I learned about a social psychological theory originated by Professor Tory Higgins called "regulatory focus,"
在哥伦比亚，我了解到托里·希金斯提出的一个社会心理学理论叫做“调节定向理论”，
which differentiates between two distinct motivational orientations of promotion and prevention.
该理论把预防和促进作为两种不同的动力倾向区分开来。
A promotion focus is concerned with gains and emphasizes hopes, accomplishments and advancement needs,
把促进作为焦点就是更关注收益，更重视希望、成就以及取得成就所需要的因素，
while a prevention focus is concerned with losses and emphasizes safety, responsibility and security needs.
而把预防作为焦点就是更关注损失，强调安全、责任以及保障安全的措施。
Since the best-case scenario for a prevention focus is to simply maintain the status quo,
以预防为焦点的案例中，最好的结果仅仅是保持现状，
this has us treading water just to stay afloat,
也就是为了浮在水面上，要求我们踩水，
while a promotion focus instead has us swimming in the right direction.
而以促进为焦点就要求我们学会游向正确的方向。
It's just a matter of how far we can advance.
只是所能达到的距离远近的问题。
Well, I had my very own eureka moment when it dawned on me
我醒悟的那一刻启发很大，
that this concept of promotion sounded a lot like the questions posed to my male cofounder,
促进中心论很符合我男性同伴被问到的那些问题，
while prevention resembled those questions asked of me.
而预防中心论就很像是我被问到的那些问题。
As an entrepreneurship scholar, I started digging into the research on start-up financing
作为一名创过业的学生，我开始深入研究创业融资，
and discovered there's an enormous gap between the amount of funds that male and female founders raise.
然后发现男性和女性创业者的企业可以募集到的资金额度相差极大。
Although women found 38 percent of US companies, they only get two percent of the venture funding.
尽管女性创建了美国38%的公司，最后拿到的风险投资只有2%。
I got to thinking: what if this funding gap is not due to any fundamental difference in the businesses started by men and women?
我不得不想：如果募集到的资金数额的差异，不是因为男性和女性创立的公司有差异呢？
What if women get less funding than men due to a simple difference in the questions that they get asked?
如果女性募集到的资金更少，是因为她们被问到的问题呢？
After all, when it comes to venture funding, entrepreneurs need to convince investors of their start-up's home run potential.
毕竟当谈到风险投资时，企业家们必须要想投资人展示自己公司的发展潜力。
It's not enough to merely demonstrate you're not going to lose your investors' money.
而如果你只告诉他们你不会让赔钱是不够的。
So it makes sense that women would be getting less funding than men
所以，女性拉到投资的金额更少就很好理解了，
if they're engaging in prevention as opposed to promotion-oriented dialogues.
当她们被问到的是以预防为中心而不是促进为中心的问题时。
Well, I got the chance to test this hypothesis on companies with similar quality and funding needs across all years
后来，我找到了一个机会，可以用一年的时间在一些资质和募资需求的很相近的公司的身上测试这一理论，
at the funding competition known as TechCrunch Disrupt Startup Battlefield has run in New York City since its inception in 2010.
那就是在从2010年在纽约开展起的TechCrunch Disrupt创业竞技场资金竞赛上。
TechCrunch is widely regarded as the ideal place for start-ups to launch,
TechCrunch是公认的创业者发布自己想法和概念的理想平台，
with participants including start-ups that have since become household names,
其中的参与者还包括如今已经家喻户晓的那些品牌，
like Dropbox, Fitbit and Mint, presenting to some of the world's most prominent VCs.
比如Dropbox，Fitbit以及Mint，参与者将会向世界上最有名的风投人展示自己的作品。
Well, despite the comparability of companies in my sample,
尽管我样本中的这些公司在各方面都很相近，
male-led start-ups went on to raise five times as much funding as the female-led ones.
但是男性领导的公司所获得的投资是女性带领的公司的五倍之多。
This made me especially curious to see what's driving this gender disparity.
我十分好奇这种性别差异是如何形成的。
Well, it took a while,
虽然花了一些时间，
but I got my hands on all the videos of both the pitches and the Q&A sessions from TechCrunch, and I had them transcribed.
但是我还是拿到TechCrunch提供的展示及问答环节的录像，并把它们誊写下来。
I first analyzed the transcripts by loading a dictionary of regulatory-focused terms into the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software called LIWC.
我首先把调节定向理论的一系列术语输入到语言获得和词汇计数软件，该软件简称LIWC。
This LIWC software generated the frequencies of promotion and prevention words in the transcribed text.
之后用它对文本进行了分析，软件显示了文本里预防性和促进性词汇出现的频率。
As a second method, I had each of the questions and answers manually coded by the Tory Higgins Research Lab at Columbia.
第二个方法是我用托里·希金斯哥伦比亚实验室的数据，手动给每个问题和回答进行了编码。
Regardless of the topic at hand, an intention can be framed in promotion or prevention.
这样不管谈论的话题是什么，这句话的意图是属于促进性的还是预防性的就会显示出来。
Let's take that topic of customers I mentioned briefly earlier.
用我之前简单提过的那些客户来打比方吧。
A promotion-coded question sounds like, "How many new customers do you plan to acquire this year?"
促进性的问题是这样的：“你今年预备吸引多少新客户？”
while a prevention-coded one sounds like, "How do you plan to retain your existing customers?"
而预防性的问题就是：“你打算如何留住目前拥有的客户？”
During the same time, I also gathered background information on the start-ups and entrepreneurs that can affect their funding outcomes,
同时，我还收集了可能影响投资结果的公司和企业家的背景信息，
like the start-up's age, quality and funding needs and the entrepreneur's past experience,
例如他们的年龄，公司资质，资金需求，还有企业家过去的相关经验，
so I could use these data points as controls in my analysis.
这样我就能把这些信息当做条件用来分析。
Well, the very first thing that I found is that there's no difference in the way entrepreneurs present their companies.
我发现的第一件事是，各位企业家介绍自己公司的方式都差不多。
In other words, both male and female entrepreneurs use similar degrees of promotion and prevention language in their actual pitches.
也就是说，男女企业家在拉投资时用来展示自己公司时所用的促进型和预防型语言的倾向性是差不多的。
So having ruled out this difference on the entrepreneur's side,
所以企业家这边的这条原因就被划掉了，
I then moved on to the investor's side,
然后我开始看投资人这边，
analyzing the six minutes of Q&A sessions that entrepreneurs engaged in with the VCs after pitching.
我分析了公司介绍结束后企业家和风投人之间6分钟的问答环节。
When examining the nearly 2,000 questions and corresponding answers in these exchanges,
在对这些交流中的近2000个问题和相应的答案进行研究时，
both of my methods showed significant support for the fact
我的两种方法都非常明显地显示，
that male entrepreneurs get asked promotion questions and female entrepreneurs get asked prevention questions.
男性企业家经常被问到促进型问题，而女性企业家经常被问到预防型问题。
In fact, a whopping 67 percent of the questions posed to male entrepreneurs were promotion-focused,
实际上，男性企业家被问到促进型问题的概率达到了惊人的67%，
while 66 percent of those posed to female entrepreneurs were prevention-focused.
而女性企业家被问到预防型问题的概率也达到了66%。
What's especially interesting is that I expected female VCs to behave similarly to male VCs.
另外，我发现很有趣的一点是，我认为女性风投人的行为跟男性风投人差不多。
Given its prevalence in the popular media and the venture-funding literature,
鉴于大众媒体的流行趋势以及风险投资的文献，
I expected the birds-of-a-feather theory of homophily to hold here,
我期待着物以类聚这一趋同性理论在这个案例里也能适用，
meaning that male VCs would favor male entrepreneurs with promotion questions
也就是男性投资者会用促进型问题帮助男性企业家，
and female VCs would do the same for female entrepreneurs.
而女性投资者也会为女性企业家这么做。
But instead, all VCs displayed the same implicit gender bias
但是相反的是，所有的投资人都表现出同样的隐性性别偏见，
manifested in the regulatory focus of the questions they posed to male versus female candidates.
表现在问调节定向问题时都区别了男性与女性的相对。
So female VCs asked male entrepreneurs promotion questions
女性投资人问男性企业家促进型问题，
and then turned around and asked female entrepreneurs prevention questions just like the male VCs did.
然后转过来却向女性企业家提出预防性问题，就跟男性投资人一样。
So given the fact that both male and female VCs are displaying this implicit gender bias,
那既然男性和女性投资人身上都显示出了这种隐性的性别歧视，
what effect, if any, does this have on start-up funding outcomes? My research shows it has a significant effect.
如果这对募资结果有影响的话，会是什么影响呢？我的调查显示它对结果有非常大的影响。
The regulatory focus of investor questions not only predicted how well the start-ups would perform at the TechCrunch Disrupt competitions
投资人调节定向的问题不仅会影响这些初创企业在TechCrunch Disrupt竞赛中的表现，
but also how much funding the start-ups went on to raise in the open market.
还会决定这些初创企业在公开市场上筹集了多少资金。
Those start-ups who were asked predominantly promotion questions went on to raise seven times as much funding as those asked prevention questions.
被问到促进型问题的公司拿到的资金是被问到预防性问题的公司的七倍。
But I didn't stop there. I then moved on to analyze entrepreneurs' responses to those questions,
但我没有止步于此。我继续分析了企业家们对这些问题的回答，
and I found that entrepreneurs are apt to respond in kind to the questions they get,
我发现那些企业家们会根据被问到的问题来回答，
meaning a promotion question begets a promotion response and a prevention question begets a prevention response.
也就是说促进型的问题会得到促进型的回答，而预防型的问题会得到预防型的回答。
Now, this might make intuitive sense to all of us here,
现在，对我们来说这也许看起来很直接，
but it has some unfortunate consequences in this context of venture funding.
但在风险投资的背景下，它会产生一些不幸的后果。
So what ends up happening is that a male entrepreneur gets asked a promotion question,
所以最终发生的是，一个男性企业家被问到一个促进型问题，
granting him the luxury to reinforce his association with the favorable domain of gains by responding in kind,
他就会获得机会对收益做出比较华丽的解释，从而获得更多认可，
while a female entrepreneur gets asked a prevention question
而被问到预防型问题的女性企业家，
and inadvertently aggravates her association with the unfavorable domain of losses by doing so.
则无意中加剧了她与损失的联系。
These responses then trigger venture capitalists' subsequent biased questions,
这些企业家的回答则会导致投资者接下来的一系列带有偏见的问题，
and the questions and answers collectively fuel a cycle of bias that merely perpetuates the gender disparity.
这些问题和回答一起更加促进了性别的不平等。
Pretty depressing stuff, right?
很让人失望，对吧？
Well, fortunately, there's a silver lining to my findings.
但幸运的是，我的发现也有一线希望。
Those plucky entrepreneurs who managed to switch focus by responding to prevention questions with promotion answers
那些敢于转移焦点，用促进型回应回答预防型问题的企业家们，
went on to raise 14 times more funding than those who responded to prevention questions with prevention answers.
拿到的投资是用预防型回应回答预防型问题的14倍。
So what this means is that if you're asked a question about defending your start-up's market share,
这就意味着，如果你被问到如何维护自己公司的市场份额，
you'd be better served to frame your response around the size and growth potential of the overall pie
你最好根据整个市场的规模和增长潜力来制定你的应对方案，
as opposed to how you merely plan to protect your sliver of that pie.
而不是仅仅计划着保护自己的利益。
So if I get asked this question, I would say,
所以如果我被问到这个问题，我会说，
"We're playing in such a large and fast-growing market that's bound to attract new entrants.
“我们面临的是一个巨大的发展飞快的市场，它一定会吸引更多新的客户。
We plan to take increasing share in this market by leveraging our start-up's unique assets."
我们计划通过提升我们的独有优势来争取新增的市场份额。”
I've thus subtly redirected this dialogue into the favorable domain of gains.
因此，我巧妙地将这一对话转向有利的收益领域。
Now, these results are quite compelling among start-ups that launched at TechCrunch
这些结果对在TechCrunch起步的这些公司来说很容易令人信服，
but field data can merely tell us that there's a correlational relationship between regulatory focus and funding.
但外业调查的数据仅仅能证明焦点调节和资金募集之间有一定的关联。
So I sought to see whether this difference in regulatory focus can actually cause funding outcomes
于是我想核实焦点调节中的差异是否真的可以导致吸引投资的结果，
by running a controlled experiment on both angel investors and ordinary people.
于是我对天使投资人和普通人做了一个对照实验。
Simulating the TechCrunch Disrupt environment,
我模仿了TechCrunch Disrupt的形式，
I had participants listen to four six-minute audio files of 10 question-and-answer exchanges that were manipulated for promotion and prevention language,
让参与者先听6分钟的音频文件，里面是设计成预防型和促进型的10个对话，
and then asked them to allocate a sum of funding to each venture as they saw fit.
然后让他们把一笔资金分配给他们觉得合适的人。
Well, my experimental results reinforced my findings from the field.
我的实验结果进一步验证了我的发现。
Those scenarios where entrepreneurs were asked promotion questions
被问到促进型问题的企业家得到的资金，
received twice the funding allocations of those where entrepreneurs were asked prevention questions.
是被问到预防型问题的企业家的两倍。
What's especially promising is the fact that those scenarios where entrepreneurs switched as opposed to matched focus
好消息是，那些在被问到预防性问题时转移问题焦点的企业家，
when they received prevention questions received significantly more funding from both sets of participants.
拿到的资金比按照原本问题倾向来回答的企业家们拿到的都多得多。
So to my female entrepreneurs out there, here are a couple simple things you could do.
所以对于女企业家们，这里有一些简单的事情你可以做。
The first is to recognize the question you're being asked.
首先要认识到你被问到的问题。
Are you getting a prevention question?
你被提问的是一个预防性问题吗？
If this is the case, answer the question at hand by all means,
如果是这样，请务必回答手头的问题，
but merely frame your response in promotion in an effort to garner higher amounts of funding for your start-ups.
但是，你只需要用促进型的方式来回应，为你的初创企业争取更多的资金。
The unfortunate reality, though, is that both men and women evaluating start-ups display the same implicit gender bias in their questioning,
但不幸的是，无论是男性投资人还是女性投资人，都在评估创业公司时显示出了相同的隐性性别偏见，
inadvertently favoring male entrepreneurs over female ones.
即不可避免的更加偏向男性企业家。
So to my investors out there, I would offer that you have an opportunity here to approach Q&A sessions more even-handedly,
因此对各位投资人，我想说你们有机会在这里更公正地对待问答环节，
not just so that you could do the right thing, but so that you can improve the quality of your decision making.
这样不仅是让你们做出了正确的选择，还提高了你们决策的质量。
By flashing the same light on every start-up's potential for gains and losses,
通过让每一位企业家公平的展示自己赢得收益和造成损失的可能性，
you enable all deserving start-ups to shine and you maximize returns in the process.
你们就能让所有有资格的企业家发挥出自己的能力，同时在这一过程中你们也能获得最大的收益。
Today, I get to be that girl walking by the pool, sounding the alarm that something is going on beneath the surface.
今天，让我来做那个走在池边的女孩，来敲响警钟告诉你们水面下正在发生的事。
Together, we have the power to break this cycle of implicit gender bias in start-up funding.
只要我们联合起来，就可以打破创业公司在募集资金时存在的隐形性别偏见的循环。
Let's give the most promising start-ups, regardless of whether they're led by men or women,
无论创业公司的老板是男性还是女性，让我们给最有前途的创业公司，
a fighting chance to grow and thrive. Thank you.
一个成长和壮大的机会。谢谢。
