Verslininkams, norintiems pritraukti papildomą finansavimą, verta pabandyti nuolankumą: pradedančiųjų įmonių steigėjai turėtų būti drąsūs ir pasitikintys savimi. O gal ir ne

 „Verslininkams kartais apsimoka nusižeminti.

 

    Tai yra naujausio tyrimo, paskelbto žurnale „Academy of Management Proceedings“, išvada. 

 

Ankstyvosios stadijos verslininkai, demonstruojantys nuolankumo investuotojams požymius, turi beveik dvigubai didesnę tikimybę pasiekti kitą finansavimo proceso etapą, nei tie, kurie to nedaro.

 

    „Yra neatitikimas tarp bendro steigėjo įvaizdžio ir pradinių verslininkų, kurie iš tikrųjų yra finansuojami“, – sako Laurentas Vilanova, Liono 2 universiteto finansų profesorius.

 

    Norėdami patikrinti nuolankumo galią, autoriai apklausė rizikos kapitalistus, kad sužinotų, kokių verslininkų jie ieškojo. Viena vertus, investuotojai davė atsakymus, kurių tikėjotės: jie norėjo steigėjų, kurie būtų agresyvūs ir ambicingi. Tačiau jie taip pat norėjo, kad tas savybes sušvelnintų nuolankumas – steigėjai, gebantys išklausyti, sutikti, kad finansuotojai geriau išmano jų pasirinktą sektorių ir kurie lengvai priimtų patarimus.

 

    „Nuolankumas nėra silpna savybė“, – sako bendraautorė Ivana Vitanova, Liono finansų profesorė. „Tai veikiau atspindi stiprų žmogų, kuris žino, kad kai ko negali padaryti, jis paprašys kitų patarimo ir vertins jų žinias.

 

    Ankstesnėje literatūroje buvo nagrinėjamas organizacijų lyderių nuolankumas ir nustatyta, kad nuolankūs vadovai skatino komandinį darbą ir bendrą viziją. Prancūzijos mokslininkai norėjo sužinoti, kaip ta pati kokybė paveikė išorinių suinteresuotųjų šalių suvokimą apie verslininkus ir ar tai savo ruožtu paskatino finansavimą.

 

    „Kadangi rizikos kapitalo įmonės nėra vien tik finansų teikėjai, socialinė abiejų šalių sąveika atrodytų svarbi“, – sako prof. Vilanova. „Įtarėme, kad jei verslininkai prisistatys kaip kuklūs, potencialūs investuotojai jaustų, kad gali jais pasitikėti, juos treniruoti ir kartu su jais stengtis bei kompetentingai kurti naują organizaciją. Tada rizikos kapitalo įmonės finansuotų tokius startuolius.

 

    Norėdami patikrinti savo hipotezes, profesoriai sukūrė netikrų susitikimų stenogramas dviem verslininkams, kurie abu buvo įkūrę dronų gamybos verslą. Vienas iš jų buvo nuolankus, kitas – ne.

 

    Nuolankus verslininkas padarė tokius pareiškimus: „Pripažįstu, kad vis dar yra tam tikrų neaiškumų dėl mūsų verslo modelio tvarumo ir mūsų galimybių užsidirbti pinigų iš mūsų pasiūlymo“. Atsakydamas į investuotojų prieštaravimus, ne toks nuolankus įkūrėjas pasakytų: „Asmeniškai aš tikiu mūsų verslo plano tvarumu ir mūsų galimybėmis greitai pradėti uždirbti iš mūsų pasiūlymo“.

 

    Tyrėjai paprašė šimtų rizikos kapitalo investuotojų Prancūzijoje pasverti, kaip jie suvokia verslininkų asmenybes, ar jie jaučiasi suderinami su jais ir kiek tikėtina, kad jie finansuos savo įmones; Atsiliepė 57 asmenys.

 

    „Mes nustatėme, kad rizikos kapitalo įmonės mano, kad nuolankūs verslininkai pasižymi konstruktyvesnėmis savybėmis, yra labiau mokomi ir labiau linkę pasistengti su investuotojais, kurie praleis daugybę valandų formuodami tolesnius šių ankstyvojo etapo įmonių žingsnius“, – sako prof. Vilanova.

 

    Nors kuklūs verslininkai buvo suvokiami kaip mažiau novatoriški nei jų ryžtingi kolegos apskritai, teigiami bruožai nusveria neigiamus. Galų gale, kuklus verslininkas turėjo 1,7 karto daugiau šansų, nei kitas.

 

    Prof. Vilanova ir Vitanova mano, kad jų išvados rodo, kad verslininkai, ieškodami investuotojų, turėtų išsakyti savo abejones, galbūt pasakyti ką nors panašaus į: „Tikime, kad turime gerą projektą. Vis dėlto yra keletas problemų, kurias reikia išspręsti. Dažniausiai konsultuojuosi su bendradarbiais visais svarbiais klausimais ir sunkiai dirbsime su jumis ir mano komanda, kad projektas būtų sėkmingas. Jie taip pat turėtų stengtis neatrodyti visiškai įsitikinę savo sėkme ir vengti sakyti kažką panašaus į: "Aš turiu aiškią šios įmonės viziją. Aš klausau kitų nuomonės, bet daugeliu atvejų man labiau patinka vadovautis savo nuojauta".

 

    „VC vertina verslininkus, kurie kelia aukštus tikslus savo įmonėms“, – sako prof. Vilanova.

 

    „Tuo pačiu metu, – priduria prof. Vitanova, – jie mano, kad ambicijos be nuolankumo yra arogancijos, perdėto pasitikėjimo ir užsispyrimo ženklas.“ [1]

  1. For Entrepreneurs Looking to Raise Money, Try Humility: Startup founders are supposed to be brash and confident. Maybe not.
Mitchell, Heidi.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 04 Nov 2021: R.3.

For Entrepreneurs Looking to Raise Money, Try Humility: Startup founders are supposed to be brash and confident. Maybe not.

 

"For entrepreneurs, sometimes it pays to be a little humble.

That is the finding of a recent study in the Academy of Management Proceedings journal. Early-stage entrepreneurs who display signs of humility with investors are nearly twice as likely to reach the next step of the funding process as ones who don't.

"There is a discrepancy between a founder's common image and the early-stage entrepreneurs who are actually funded," says Laurent Vilanova, a professor of finance at the University of Lyon 2.

To test the power of humility, the authors surveyed venture capitalists to learn what kind of entrepreneurs they sought out. On the one hand, the investors gave the answers that you would expect: They wanted founders who were aggressive and ambitious. But they also wanted those qualities to be tempered by humility -- founders who were capable of listening, who would accept that the funders knew better in their chosen sector and who would take advice easily.

"Humility is not a weak trait," says co-author Ivana Vitanova, an associate professor of finance at Lyon. "Rather, it reflects a strong person who knows that when there is something he cannot do, he will ask others for advice and appreciate their knowledge."

Earlier literature has looked at humility among leaders within organizations and found that humble chief executives fostered teamwork and a shared vision. The French researchers wanted to know how that same quality influenced external stakeholders' perception of entrepreneurs and if that, in turn, led to funding.

"Since VCs are not just purely finance providers, the social interaction between the two parties would seem to be important," Prof. Vilanova says. "We suspected that if entrepreneurs presented themselves as humble, potential investors would feel that they could trust them, coach them and click with them and that they could competently construct and build their organization." Then the VCs would fund their startups.

To test their hypotheses, the professors created transcripts of fake pitch meetings for two entrepreneurs -- both of whom had founded drone-making businesses. One of them was humble, the other wasn't.

The humble entrepreneur made statements like, "I admit there are still some uncertainties about the sustainability of our business model and our capacity to monetize our offer." In response to investors' objections, the less humble founder would say, "Personally, I believe in the sustainability of our business plan and our capacity to quickly start making money out of our offer."

The researchers asked hundreds of venture capitalists in France to weigh in, asking how they perceived the entrepreneurs' personalities, if they felt compatible with them and how likely they were to fund their companies; 57 individuals responded.

"We found that VCs perceive humble entrepreneurs to have more constructive qualities, to be more coachable and were more likely to click with the investors, who will spend countless hours shaping the next steps of these early-phase companies," says Prof. Vilanova.

While humble entrepreneurs were perceived as being less innovative than their assertive counterparts overall, the positive traits outweighed the negative. In the end, the humble entrepreneur was 1.7 times likelier to receive an investor offer than the other.

 

Profs. Vilanova and Vitanova believe their findings suggest that entrepreneurs should express their doubts when seeking investors, perhaps saying something such as, "We really believe that we have a good project. Still, there are some issues to address. I usually consult with my collaborators on all important issues and will work hard with you and my team to make the project successful." They should also try not to appear completely certain of their success and avoid saying something like, "I have a clear vision about this venture. I listen to others' opinions, but in most cases I prefer following my own gut."

 

"VCs appreciate entrepreneurs who set high goals for their ventures," Prof. Vilanova says.

 

"At the same time," adds Prof. Vitanova, "they estimate that ambition without humility is a sign of arrogance, overconfidence and stubbornness."" [1]

 

1.  For Entrepreneurs Looking to Raise Money, Try Humility: Startup founders are supposed to be brash and confident. Maybe not.
Mitchell, Heidi.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 04 Nov 2021: R.3.

Proto bokštai - Landsbergiai

 Landsbergių atakos prieš valdžią  Baltarusijoje duoda ilgai lauktų vaisių - Baltarusija pripažino, kad Krymas priklauso Rusijai.

How our innovative way of life heats the atmosphere, acidifies the oceans and what to do now

 "It is clear that technological change is most needed in some of the most important greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting areas: energy production (25% of GHG), agriculture (food production) (24% of GHG), industry (21% of GHG), transport (14% of GHG), construction (6% of GHG) and other sectors (10% of GHG).

 

    If we are more or less close to a decisive technological breakthrough in transport and energy (we have solar and wind power plants and electric cars and are approaching hydrogen-powered transport), then we lack scientific and technological progress in other areas. The industrial and agricultural sectors are particularly problematic. We don’t understand the industry and construction and don’t want to understand, so let’s talk about agriculture. After all, most of us have recently been from the farms.

 

 

    Earth feeder

 

    Here, let’s look at a vital agricultural sector. I say it is vital because without food we would not survive long.

 

    The food sector is already dominated by cereals, which account for 45%. world calorie intake. Meat, milk, fish, eggs make up just over 20 percent calories.

 

    In the agricultural sector we have several main objects of pollution: mineral fertilizers (both in their production and in themselves they are rich in GHGs); livestock (emits methane gas when passing gas); agricultural machinery (diesel); deforestation of forests, destruction of grasslands, wetlands (which emits large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere) and other activities that contribute to climate change.

 

    There are those who say that this is - let's move on to a plant-based diet and everything will work out. Unfortunately, this is just a radical myth. In the Vegan world, there are no more than 15 percent. (The number is already quite high, as even a third of Indians follow such a diet because of their religious beliefs). As we can see, we already get almost half of the calories from cereals, and animal-derived calories make up a much smaller portion of the calories. However, it is food of animal origin that is more proteinaceous and rich in the necessary vitamins and minerals.

 

    To follow the path of a vegan diet requires an extremely mixed plant diet, which should increase the consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts, mushrooms and other plant foods very rapidly. If such a jump were extremely rapid, we would not be able to do without the growth of greenhouse gases, because we would need even more mineral fertilizers (after all, they are used primarily in crop production), even more arable machinery (even more diesel), and many more forests or grasslands. large plantations of cereals, legumes or other crops. We don't want that either. So this radical path is neither smart nor realistically possible. It is likely that the current set of plant and meat foods will remain similar to what we have today, all the more so as it relates to food consumption traditions and our culture.

 

    Reducing the effects of all these activities requires not radical bans and restrictions, but technological solutions that we do not yet have (or do have, but are not yet available to every farmer):

 

    • there is a need for biological fertilizers that are cheap and can be produced in extremely large quantities;

 

    • Feed and additives are needed for animals to reduce methane production in the digestive system.

 

    • the need for clean agricultural machinery (now almost all of it is powered by the most polluting diesel fuel);

 

    • There is a need for more balanced farming practices (regenerative farming) based on GHG sequestration (more on this later).

 

    All these and other necessary technological solutions are the things that need to be introduced, not just discussed, but also globally. A great deal of research is being done, but it is by no means achieving real practical application.

 

    There is also no mention of modern fertilizers that can actually reduce the use of mineral fertilizers. Will you say that is an insignificant goal? Example, if Lithuanian farms at least 15 percent. to reduce the use of mineral fertilizers, then tomorrow we will achieve the full ambition of Lithuanian agricultural GHG reduction, which has been set for us by 2030. In fact, we could even shelter any other percentage of GHGs from other sectors. But to achieve this, farmers need alternatives, new preparations. (Or maybe just ancient manure? But it requires hard work with forks ... (K.))

 

    Finally, little attention is paid to GHG sequestration. What is it? It is the process by which greenhouse gases are extracted from the atmosphere and locked in the ground. The best known example of sequestration is plants. Plants use atmospheric CO2 for the process of photosynthesis. In this way, CO2 is locked in the plant itself and, over time, in the soil. That is why it is said that in order to reduce CO2 emissions we need to plant significant more trees. However, there are other techniques that allow the sequestration process to be performed.

 

    Non-arable farming, well known to farmers, is one such technique. It is a technological process in which seed is planted in uncultivated land. What does this bring? This technique allows you to create a fairly thick crust of humus (rot, which forms a very important organic layer of the soil) in the soil. Humus is trapped in CO2, and sown crops use the minerals it contains. This method of farming not only traps (sequester) the carbon in the soil, but also allows the use of less mineral fertilizers, as a natural layer of minerals is formed. Such farming is much more sustainable and would make a very strong contribution to climate policy goals.

    However, it is complicated and expensive. Very often farmers do not follow this path because it is a high risk.

 

    The risk can be reduced by paying farmers for GHG sequestration, i. extraction of carbon from the atmosphere and trapping in the soil. Such funding schemes are already being tested in the US and some parts of Europe. Why is this not being discussed globally?

 

    There are also more technologies that allow atmospheric carbon to be returned to the earth efficiently. However, for some reason, all of them receive very little attention. This is an unforgivable mistake, as any technology that contributes to the common goals of climate change reversal must be used to its full potential."