Founder Profiling
Today we had a read-out of a psychometric profiling assessment for one of the founders we're about to invest in.
It was (generously) funded and led by a co-investor, and so I am hugely grateful. Everyone investing in the same round - before the incentives can get wonky - is on the same team, and I greatly appreciate the effort in helping us all make a smarter collective decision: not just about whether to invest, but perhaps more importantly, to help answer the key post-round question: "Now what?"
Despite my gratitude, I still get the feeling that founder psychometric testing hasn't been nailed. A few pet peeves:
- Any qualitative element (including the interpretation/synthesis of quantitative data) is always highly subjective and prone to bias from the person doing the data gathering and analysis.
- It's always prefaced with "this isn't necessarily a good or bad thing", which is kind/inclusive but I think can blur the edges of some of the issues that need to be addressed head-on.
- The comparator datasets on quantitative metrics are usually a population that has very different characteristics to a founder (often distilling down to "white collar workers"). Founders - particularly successful founders - are by definition top percentile, which doesn't show up when benchmarked vs. quartiles.
- The key outputs are often buried inside long PPT decks that have excessive detail and lack clear action-orientation.
- I've never, ever seen it backtested to see if it actually correlates with successful outcomes.
I know there are lots of platforms out there that have tried this - and maybe some funds that have a secret sauce internally that works for them. But we don't, and I'm yet to see an external solution that I can truly hang my hat on.