4 ms·

This response just proves the OP's point. Give him credit for opening up, instead of this response (which is not constructive), and comes off as an attack back

by jayliew 14y ago

This response just proves the OP's point. Give him credit for opening up, instead of this response (which is not constructive), and comes off as an attack back at him. For VCs to make money, they need to have as many founders like them, so they lie .. exactly because of responses like this. It does the VCs more harm to be honest with what they think[1], because it pisses off the founders. [1] Sure they could be wrong about you (by passing on you), but nobody claims to be perfect. If you're just unable to accept rejection, then well, there's your first problem.

rexreed 14y ago
I'm not sure I interpret the above post you respond to as an attack. If I were to overly simplify, the summary of the OP Post is: "We reserve the right to lie, because we feel you can't handle the truth" And many entrepreneurs respond: "If you can't feel fit to tell me the truth, then we don't have a relationship based on trust. And that means, there is no relationship." If the OP's opinion is honest and forthright (ironic given that it is asserting a right to lie), then the entrepreneur's response is just as justified in being honest and forthright (we reserve the right to not work with liars). If the desire to lie on the part of the VC is simply to avoid the pain of dealing with upset enterpreneurs or the potential of burning bridges, then they need to accept that they may offend other entrepreneurs who more value honesty over lying for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings.
- jayliew 14y ago
  Perhaps this is merely a difference in perception. I re-read nirvana's post I originally responded after reading your perception of it, and it comes off defensive and passive aggressive. In particular: "Thus, given that we've decided your team is not strong enough to be investors in our company we're going to pass." <-- well if the VC's team is not strong enough to be investors, why were you pitching them for money in the first place? Seems to me like if you'd pitching them, then clearly you thought they were good, because you're trying to get something out of them. Therefore, a "you're not good enough for us anyway" response reminds me of the story of the fox and the sour grapes[1]. Perhaps also a difference in perspective, Josh suggested a solution at the end of the post - so to me, it's not justifying lying as it is merely stating that something is broken, and here are some steps to take a stab at solving the problem. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
notJim 14y ago
The most-analogous situation I've been with this is in hiring, and if one of my coworkers gave age or "fidgeting in chair" as a reason not to hire, I would call them out on it. I'm sorry, but that's simply not a valid measure of competence. If these are the reasons VCs choose not to invest in companies, then the reason VCs lie is because their reasoning is bullshit, and they don't want to get called out on it.
- jayliew 14y ago
  1. The value/measure of a VC to their bosses (their LP / investors) are whether or not they provide a good return. Period. Their bosses do not incentivize them based on great interviewing skills. There is nothing to be "called out" for here. They could have the crappiest interviewing skills, as long as they make their investors money. This is not a contest on meritocracy, or skill, as it pertains to interviewing. 2. I'm sorry, but your response isn't even relevant to my response. I wasn't commenting on the VCs interviewing skills at all. I was commenting on nirvana's response. 3. This is the real world. In a perfect world, every candidate would be interviewed by the world's best interviewer that can see past all our weakness and only see all your strength (interviewees would want that, no?) Unfortunately, you work with what you have - not with what you wish you had. Cheers.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    Regarding #1. The author of the essay left out that he and the other VCs have learned to identify behavior in the interview that equates to ability, or lack of ability, to make money. For example, the fidgeting he observes in response to a certain question indicates that the founder is less likely to make money because of an unaddressed problem, possibly unaddressable due to the founder's character or way of doing business. The essay jumps straight from interview behavior to a decision to not fund, leaving the reader to work out what is the assumption. There is simply no other reason the VC would consider such behavior important.
    - notJim 14y ago
      > There is simply no other reason the VC would consider such behavior important. Unless maybe the VC is in irrational human being who has biases just like everyone else. Unless they've actually done studies on whether fidgeting is a good indication of company performance, this statement is ludicrous.

by jayliew 14y ago

rexreed 14y ago

I'm not sure I interpret the above post you respond to as an attack. If I were to overly simplify, the summary of the OP Post is: "We reserve the right to lie, because we feel you can't handle the truth" And many entrepreneurs respond: "If you can't feel fit to tell me the truth, then we don't have a relationship based on trust. And that means, there is no relationship." If the OP's opinion is honest and forthright (ironic given that it is asserting a right to lie), then the entrepreneur's response is just as justified in being honest and forthright (we reserve the right to not work with liars). If the desire to lie on the part of the VC is simply to avoid the pain of dealing with upset enterpreneurs or the potential of burning bridges, then they need to accept that they may offend other entrepreneurs who more value honesty over lying for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings.

jayliew 14y ago
Perhaps this is merely a difference in perception. I re-read nirvana's post I originally responded after reading your perception of it, and it comes off defensive and passive aggressive. In particular: "Thus, given that we've decided your team is not strong enough to be investors in our company we're going to pass." <-- well if the VC's team is not strong enough to be investors, why were you pitching them for money in the first place? Seems to me like if you'd pitching them, then clearly you thought they were good, because you're trying to get something out of them. Therefore, a "you're not good enough for us anyway" response reminds me of the story of the fox and the sour grapes[1]. Perhaps also a difference in perspective, Josh suggested a solution at the end of the post - so to me, it's not justifying lying as it is merely stating that something is broken, and here are some steps to take a stab at solving the problem. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

notJim 14y ago

The most-analogous situation I've been with this is in hiring, and if one of my coworkers gave age or "fidgeting in chair" as a reason not to hire, I would call them out on it. I'm sorry, but that's simply not a valid measure of competence. If these are the reasons VCs choose not to invest in companies, then the reason VCs lie is because their reasoning is bullshit, and they don't want to get called out on it.

jayliew 14y ago
1. The value/measure of a VC to their bosses (their LP / investors) are whether or not they provide a good return. Period. Their bosses do not incentivize them based on great interviewing skills. There is nothing to be "called out" for here. They could have the crappiest interviewing skills, as long as they make their investors money. This is not a contest on meritocracy, or skill, as it pertains to interviewing. 2. I'm sorry, but your response isn't even relevant to my response. I wasn't commenting on the VCs interviewing skills at all. I was commenting on nirvana's response. 3. This is the real world. In a perfect world, every candidate would be interviewed by the world's best interviewer that can see past all our weakness and only see all your strength (interviewees would want that, no?) Unfortunately, you work with what you have - not with what you wish you had. Cheers.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  Regarding #1. The author of the essay left out that he and the other VCs have learned to identify behavior in the interview that equates to ability, or lack of ability, to make money. For example, the fidgeting he observes in response to a certain question indicates that the founder is less likely to make money because of an unaddressed problem, possibly unaddressable due to the founder's character or way of doing business. The essay jumps straight from interview behavior to a decision to not fund, leaving the reader to work out what is the assumption. There is simply no other reason the VC would consider such behavior important.
  - notJim 14y ago
    > There is simply no other reason the VC would consider such behavior important. Unless maybe the VC is in irrational human being who has biases just like everyone else. Unless they've actually done studies on whether fidgeting is a good indication of company performance, this statement is ludicrous.