According to Forbes, new research commissioned by Ada Ventures and conducted with behavioral scientists at Synaptiq analyzed the psychological traits of 171 unicorn founders across the UK, Europe, and North America. The study identified 159 traits, with 141 shared universally across all unicorn founders regardless of background. Four key traits emerged as most significant: low neuroticism, high analytical thinking, positive emotion word usage, and frequent use of “we” language. The research also found 18 subtle trait variations between diverse and non-diverse founders, suggesting different expressions of the same underlying potential. This empirical evidence challenges the venture industry’s long-standing reliance on pattern matching based on educational background, work history, and demographic similarities to previous success stories.
Table of Contents
The Hidden Cost of Familiarity Bias
The venture capital industry’s pattern matching problem runs deeper than most investors acknowledge. What began as a practical heuristic for managing deal flow has evolved into a systemic barrier to innovation. When investors default to backing founders who resemble previous winners, they’re essentially betting on the past rather than the future. This creates a dangerous feedback loop where successful patterns get reinforced while novel approaches get filtered out. The irony is that venture capital, which prides itself on funding disruption, has become remarkably conservative in its selection processes.
The explosion in startup formation has exacerbated this problem. With seed funds receiving hundreds of pitch decks weekly, the temptation to use educational pedigree and previous employment as quick filters becomes overwhelming. But this efficiency comes at a steep price: missing the next generation of unicorn companies that don’t fit established patterns. The most innovative ideas often come from founders who don’t look, sound, or think like their predecessors.
Why Behavioral Science Changes Everything
The Ada Ventures research represents a significant shift from subjective pattern matching to objective trait analysis. For decades, venture capital has operated more like an art than a science, with investors relying on intuition and gut feelings. The identification of consistent psychological markers across successful founders provides the industry with its first empirical framework for evaluating potential.
What’s particularly revealing is that these traits—resilience, analytical thinking, positive outlook, and inclusive leadership—are distributed across all demographics. They’re not the exclusive domain of Ivy League graduates or former FAANG employees. This suggests that the venture industry has been systematically overlooking talent pools that contain these same psychological ingredients but lack the traditional surface-level markers.
The Practical Challenges of Implementation
While the research provides compelling evidence, implementing these insights presents significant challenges. Assessing psychological traits requires more sophisticated evaluation methods than traditional pitch meetings. Investors would need training in behavioral assessment, potentially incorporating structured interviews and psychological testing into their due diligence processes.
There’s also the risk of creating new, more sophisticated pattern matching. If every VC starts looking for low neuroticism and high analytical thinking, they might still miss founders who express these traits differently based on cultural background or personal experience. The research already hints at this challenge, noting subtle differences in how diverse founders demonstrate the same underlying potential.
Broader Market Implications
The implications extend beyond individual investment decisions. If more funds adopt evidence-based founder evaluation, we could see a fundamental reshaping of the startup ecosystem. Geographic distribution of venture funding might become more balanced as investors recognize that unicorn potential exists outside traditional hubs. The current concentration of venture capital in Silicon Valley, New York, and Boston reflects pattern matching as much as actual opportunity distribution.
This shift could also accelerate innovation in overlooked sectors. Founders working on complex technical problems or serving underserved markets often don’t fit the mold of consumer tech entrepreneurs who’ve dominated recent unicorn cohorts. By focusing on psychological traits rather than sector experience, investors might discover extraordinary opportunities in areas they’ve previously ignored.
The Road Ahead for Venture Capital
The transition from pattern matching to evidence-based investing won’t happen overnight. Established funds with successful track records may be reluctant to change approaches that have worked in the past. However, the competitive landscape suggests that early adopters of these insights could gain significant advantages.
We’re likely to see the emergence of specialized funds that explicitly reject traditional pattern matching in favor of behavioral science-driven evaluation. These funds could achieve extraordinary returns by accessing undervalued founder talent. Meanwhile, the entire industry may need to reconsider how it structures support systems for portfolio companies, tailoring resources to the specific psychological profiles of their founders rather than applying one-size-fits-all approaches.
The most exciting possibility is that we’re at the beginning of a more scientific approach to venture capital—one that could unlock innovation on a scale we haven’t seen since the internet’s early days. By finally understanding what actually makes founders successful, rather than who looks successful, the industry might finally fulfill its promise of funding the future rather than replicating the past.
