Recently, I read a comment from a startup advisor peer about the lack of women in VC-funded startup leadership.

Essentially:

While framed as flattery, it disguises something ugly-

It’s a tidy explanation for the funding gap

That promotes a dangerous narrative

Which is also - blatantly - wrong.

​

Women do start venture-backed companies - many of them.

About 1 in 5 first financings last year included a female founder.

And when women are on the founding team, they often outperform:

Teams with a woman founder delivered 63% higher returns in one major study.

They generate more revenue per dollar raised and they’re often more capital-efficient.

​

Where does the notion come from that women are more risk averse?

From a statistical difference in averages for the general population

...With HIGH overlap (aka. many men and women share the exact same levels)

...That are highly variable based on setting and context (aka. not consistent)

...That are roughly 0.2 standard deviations apart (aka. likely around 8-10% different)

​

If the difference in women-founded venture-backed startups followed the difference in risk tolerance, we'd expect men to be funded ~8-10% more often.

Instead, we live in a world where 98% of venture dollars still flow startups with male founders.

​

Because it's not about founder psychology;

It's investor psychology.

​

And this is why the “risk-averse women” story is so damaging:

It turns a systemic failure into a personality trait.

It shifts the blame from the people writing checks

To the founders already showing up.

​

Women aren’t avoiding the leap;

They’re building, they’re scaling, they’re outperforming.

The real risk isn’t them taking the swing-

It’s an investor community that keeps dropping the ball.

​

​

Your Daily CFO,

Lauren

​

​