Venture capital decides who gets to build the future. As a woman writing cheques, do you think you experience power differently from the traditional image of a VC?
Yes, a little bit. There is a slight difference. I wouldn’t lie about that. This is perhaps one of the first few generations where women have come to this level of authority. Women now have control of their money. That itself changes the process.
My main counterpart in another organization may not think the way I think. He may not experience the things I experience. Something I find noteworthy enough to write a cheque on, he may not think is noteworthy. And vice versa. Because of where we have come from, a lot of emotional intelligence has developed over the years. I like to believe women have a higher EQ. Sometimes that is very important when you are writing a cheque because you have a pulse on what is happening.
So yes, power dynamics do change a little. Thought processes differ. But I wouldn’t say one has more power or less power. At the end of the day, we are all gunning for these companies to succeed. The authority to write the cheque gives the power. The way you experience it and the way you invest may differ, but not in a hierarchical way.
Have you ever found yourself being the only woman in an investment room? How does that subtly change the dynamics?
Yes, I have found myself in rooms where I am the only woman. I found myself in such rooms eight years ago, and sometimes even today. The dynamic changes depending on the space. In real estate-related rooms, it feels lonelier. In investment rooms today, there are more women, which is incredible because it brings different motivation and perspective. In rooms where there are very few women, what tends to happen is that there aren’t enough voices representing a woman’s perspective. If you are one out of ten voices and yours is not heard, the dynamic is very different. You are not even asked.
When the room shifts from 10-90% to maybe 30-70%, your voice has to be heard because numbers bring weight. Over time, it is shifting. But sometimes women’s perspectives get ignored simply because there are too few of us.
Should this shift have happened years ago? Is it disappointing that it’s happening only now?
I always look at life positively. Better now than never. Because it is happening now, it serves as a great opportunity. If it had happened decades ago, it may not have been as prevalent or spoken about.
Today, if a woman does something significant, it gets more attention. If a woman climbs a mountain and a man climbs a mountain, media will talk about the woman more. That visibility is an opportunity. The more we do, the more it is spoken about, and the more it benefits us and the next generation. Yes, there are very few of us. But that also serves as an opportunity. This generation finally holds power and money and has the ability to cut cheques. That itself is monumental. I have a daughter who is almost one year old. I saw my mother working, and that helped me immensely. For my daughter to see me working, especially in this day and age with more like-minded women around, will serve her ambition greatly. She will want to outshine me because she already has a live role model at home.
Earlier generations did not have that luxury. Families were bigger, resources were limited, and sons were prioritized. Today, we have fewer children, more wealth generation, liberalization, and the ability to think differently. Now, daughters are not treated differently from sons in many households
In impact investing, conversations revolve around communities and inclusion. Does the industry hold itself to the same inclusion standards internally?
I have a slightly different take.
There should be funding for all communities, regardless of gender. But investment should be based on merit. If the idea is great, it shouldn’t matter whether it came from a man or a woman.
If VCs judge founders based on gender, that is not okay. But if the idea has merit, the cheque should be written regardless of whether it is classified as “impact.” I feel women should also hold themselves to that standard. Even without the quota of impact investing, my idea should stand on its own merit. Why should I only get impact investment? Impact investing is a small bracket. If I want to play in the big leagues, my idea must have enough merit to attract funding regardless. At the same time, I think the investment community is becoming more cognizant that women often carry more societal and family responsibilities. VCs need to be more accepting of the fact that a woman may get married, may have children, and can still do it all. That tolerance needs to improve.
Is there a bias in how ambition is read? For example, when a male founder says he wants to “dominate the market” versus when a woman says it?
There could be biases. But speaking for myself, if a woman said that to me, I would consider her more powerful. If a man says he wants to dominate the world, I wouldn’t even blink. Men have been saying that for ages. What’s new in that? If a woman says it, I would see it as guts and conviction. I wouldn’t interpret it negatively as being overly authoritative or ambitious. If you have the will and the guts, do it.
Do women investors ask different questions in diligence?
Yes, naturally.
If a consumer company comes to me, my questions may differ from a male counterpart’s. I think women go deeper into the customer journey. I would ask: How often do I have to change the product? How long does it last? What is maintenance like? How seamless is it? Women are often deeply involved in the consumption cycle like household decisions, sanity decisions, interior decisions, baby decisions. Consumption, 60-70%, is often geared toward women as decision-makers.
So yes, we delve deeper into customer experience questions. The technical and software questions are asked anyway. But EQ-related and customer journey questions may differ.
Has there been a moment where you backed a founder others overlooked and your instinct turned out right?
Actually, quite the contrary. I backed a woman founder about five years ago who was developing a brand. The packaging was great. She went door to door pitching the product. She even showed up at my office after traveling from Hyderabad because I told her I didn’t have time to meet. I admired her hustle. I thought if a woman has so much drive, she would create something meaningful. But I turned out to be wrong. She did not have control over her numbers. She had a financial controller, but she herself did not deeply understand her financials, unit economics, revenue, profitability. I strongly believe women founders should have strong control over financial numbers. They should understand how they make money and their unit economics clearly. That makes them more capable. That company eventually died. I realized that lack of financial control was a major gap.
Many women in finance speak about “toning down” empathy or authority. Have you ever felt pressure to adjust your leadership style?
I do think that because I am well-versed with what I am seeing, it gives me power. Sometimes I can become overbearing as a boss because I demand high quality and expect everyone to meet that standard. I can be very authoritative. There is also an empathetic side of me, but when work needs to be done, I am ready to push hard. Sometimes it serves me well. Sometimes it doesn’t, because people may hesitate to approach me, thinking I will push them harder. I hold myself to very high standards, so I expect others to do the same. Sometimes I think I shouldn’t be so hard. I don’t want to be the only bad cop in the office. In my family life, I am not like that. I draw a strong boundary. But when it comes to work, you have to do what you have to do.
What is the one myth about women in venture capital that you wish would disappear?
The one myth in the venture capital world is that women invest emotionally and are very risk averse; I aim to change that because like I said earlier women have a lot of emotional intelligence which gives them a pulse of the founder, the pulse of the business and a very different perspective. So, even before, even without knowing the founder too well, they would ask the harder questions and that I feel is a great skill. It doesn't make them emotional, it makes them, it makes someone have a higher emotional intelligence.
Ten years from now, what would real gender equity in venture capital look like and are we moving fast enough?
Ten years from now, the world should simply look normal. Gender equity should not feel like a special category or a separate conversation. There should be lesser discussions about whether someone is a female founder or a male founder and instead it should just be “founder.” There should be less diversity panels and less women-focused funds because representation would feel natural and balanced.
For me, real gender equity means that both men and women are equally represented in positions of power and are funded at similar levels. It should not matter whether the investor is a woman VC or a male VC. Women should be writing the same size cheques as their male counterparts and raising as many funding rounds. Most importantly, they should simply be referred to as founders.
“Female founder”, what does that even mean? We do not say “female managing director.” We just say “managing director.” When there are enough women and men at the table, it will feel like a natural and equitable split. Ultimately, the person with the better idea and stronger skills should win.
