ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PROMISE OR PERIL: PART 3 – AI GOVERNANCE AND VENTURE CAPITAL

Raiven Capital recently announced the launch in Dubai of its Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC) based $125M USD tech venture fund. We are proud of this accomplishment, and can’t wait to have new investors become part of our fund.

by Dr. James Baty PhD, Operating Partner & EIR and Tarek El-Sawy PhD MD, Venture Partner RAIVEN CAPITAL This is our second release in our series on governing Artificial Intelligence – AI Promise or Peril This release consists of two sections AI Regulatory Challenges & Models AI Regulation Examples & Issues The third release will cover AI from a VC perspective. The first release on AI Ethics is available here . In the inaugural episode of our ‘AI, Promise or Peril’ series, we delved into the clamor surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics—a field as polarizing as it is fascinating. Remember the Future of Life Institute’s six-month moratorium plea, backed by AI luminaries? Opinions ranged from apocalyptic warnings to messianic proclamations to cries of sheer hype. We observed that the answer to AI governance isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution; rather, it’s a cocktail of corporate self-governance, industry standards, market forces, and international legislation—sometimes with AI policing itself. Our journey began with the first episode dissecting the growing landscape of AI ethics frameworks, concluding that the quest for the perfect blend of public, private, and governmental guidelines is only just beginning. In today’s installment, let’s attempt an overview of formal AI regulation, including challenges in regulating AI, primary regulatory models, key regulation implementation, and outstanding issues. No single guide to AI governance can cover everything. Our goal is a meta-guide that highlights the key issues, actors and approaches, with an idea to be informed enough to evaluate how AI impacts the VC ecosystem.

By Dr. James Baty Advisor, Raiven Capital The headlines around AI are screaming for attention: Launching yet another AI company, Elon announced on his Twitter Spaces that he had warned Chinese leaders that digital superintelligence could unseat their government!, Other headlines herald the coming super-positive impacts on world economies: Goldman Sachs noted that generative AI could boost GDP globally by 7 percent. Amid calls for more regulation, the debate surrounding artificial intelligence has taken a multifaceted turn, blending apprehensions with aspirations. The fears and uncertainties often act as catalysts for attention and advancement in AI. The technological prowess, the risks, the allure – it’s all a heady brew. While some workers clutch their paychecks fearing obsolescence, shrewd employers rub their hands together asking, “Can AI trim my overhead?” In this three-part Dry Powder series, I will deconstruct the issues around AI governance: ethical frameworks, emerging governmental regulation and the impact AI governance is having in venture capital funds. As a technologist, my career designing and advising on large-scale tech architecture strategy has leveraged and suffered the previous two of Kai-Fu Lee’s ‘Waves of AI’. Clearly this third wave is big. Setting the Stage: Ethical Principles of Artificial Intelligence The question of AI safety and regulation has sparked heated discussion globally, especially as AI adoption spreads like wildfire. Despite calls for more regulation, the Washington Post reported that Twitch, Microsoft and Twitter are now laying off their ethics teams , adding to the industry’s increasing dismissal of those leading the work on AI governance. This should give us pause: what are the fundamental ethical principles of AI? Why are some tech executives and others spending millions to warn the public about it? Should it be regulated? Part of the answer is that fear sells. In part, AI is already regulated, but more of it is on the way. First, Let’s Discuss “The Letter” Enter the March storm: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter . Crafted by the Future of Life Institute , and signed by many of the AI ‘hero-founders,’ (who warn us about AI, while they aggressively are developing it), this letter thundered through the scientific and AI community. There were calls for a six-month halt to AI research, while the red flag of existential threats was raised. The buzz generated by the letter was notable. But, hold the phone! Forgeries appeared among the signatures, echoing ChatGPT’s infamous “ hallucinations .” Moreover, some of the actual signatories backtracked. Critically, many experts in AI research, the scientific community, and public policy underscored that the letter employed hype to peddle technology. Case in point, Emily M. Bender, a renowned neurolinguistics professor and co-author of the first paper cited in the letter, expressed her discontent. She called out the letter for its over-the-top drama and misuse of her research, coining it as “dripping with #AIhype.” Bender’s comments are suggestive of a cyclical pattern in technology adoption, where fear and hype are instrumental drivers of decision-making. As technology historian David Noble documented, the adoption of workplace and factory floor automation that swept the 1970s and ‘80s was driven by managers’ competitive fear that came to be known as FOMO (‘Fear of Missing Out’). Prof. Bender’s critique points to ‘longtermism,’ a hyper-focus on the distant horizon, while eclipsing more urgent current issues of misrepresentation, discrimination, and AI errors. Still the legitimate question remains, how should artificial intelligence be governed? How Should AI Be Governed? As we explore the labyrinth of AI governance, it’s imperative to first recognize the importance of ethical and safety principles in its development and implementation. Similar to other technologies, there are already in place industrial practices guidance and regulation of AI, not only for basic industrial safety, but also for ethics. AI poses unique challenges compared to previous technologies, necessitating tailored regulations. Determining how to regulate it involves more than just legal measures by governments and agencies. How do we develop an overall technical framework for AI governance? In 2008, Prof. Lawrence B. Solum from the University of Illinois College of Law published a paper that analyzed internet governance models. These include the different models of self-governance, market forces, national and international regulations, and even governance through software code and internet architecture. This framework can also be applied to AI governance. Considering the full range of mechanisms — industry standards, legal frameworks, and AI systems regulating other AI systems. Governance necessitates not one form, but a comprehensive approach with multiple models of regulation. It requires long-term considerations, yet must address short-term immediate challenges so that it ensures responsible and ethical development of AI. By integrating industry standards with legal frameworks and technology-specific regulations, we can work towards creating a sustainable and ethical AI ecosystem. What are the Key Principles for Ethical and Safe AI? The past decade has been marked by a surge in technical and public policy discourse aimed at establishing frameworks for responsible AI that go far beyond “ Asimov’s Three Laws ,” which protect human beings from robotics gone awry. The plethora of notable projects includes: The Asilomar AI Principles (sponsored by the Future of Life Institute), The Montreal Declaration for Responsible AI, the work by IEEE’s Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), and the ISO/IEC 30100:2018 General Guidance for AI. These undertakings have subsequently inspired specific corporate policies, including, for example, the Microsoft Responsible AI Standard v2 and the BMW Group Code of Ethics for AI. There are so many other notable attempts to provide frameworks, perhaps too many. A useful cross-framework analysis by Floridi and Cowls examined six of the most prominent expert-driven frameworks for governing AI principles. They synthesized 47 principles into five: Beneficence: Promoting well-being, preserving dignity, and sustaining the planet. Non-Maleficence: Focusing on privacy, security, and exercising “capability caution.” Autonomy: Upholding the power of individuals to make decisions. Justice: Promoting prosperity, preserving solidarity, and avoiding unfairness. Explicability: Enabling the Other Principles through Intelligibility and Accountability. These principles provide a framework to guide ethical decision-making in AI development. That last one is AI’s distinctive stamp on the ethical spectrum. AI should not just ‘do,’ it must ‘explain.’ Unlike most previous technological advancements like the similar foundational principles of bioethics, artificial intelligence should be required to explain itself and be accountable to users, the public, and regulators. Are These Principles Being Implemented? Yes. Virtually all major companies engaged in artificial intelligence are members of the Partnership on AI and are individually implementing some form of governing principles. The partnership comprises industry members (13), nonprofit organizations (62) and academic institutions (26). It also is international, operating across 17 countries. The community’s shared goal is to collaborate and create solutions that ensure AI advances positive outcomes for people and society. Members include companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and organizations like the ACM, Wikimedia, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association. Notably, large global corporations that have implemented such principles are complex global entities. They require parallel implementation by division or geography. For example, AstraZeneca, as a decentralized organization, has set up four enterprise-wide AI governance initiatives, including: overarching guidance documents, a Responsible AI Playbook, an internal Responsible AI Consultancy Service & Resolution Board, and the commissioning of AI audits via independent third parties. AI audits are a key part of any compliance structure, and are recommended in many frameworks. This enterprise model is a sort of ‘principles of AI principles’. AI Ethics: A Form of Governmental Competitive Differentiation In establishing governmental principles, Europe is a trailblazer. In September 2020, the EU completed its EAVA ethical AI framework . The key conclusion: by exploiting a first-mover advantage, a common EU approach to ethical aspects of AI has the potential to generate up to €294.9 billion in additional GDP and 4.6 million additional jobs for the European Union by 2030. Governments can feel FOMO too. The framework emphasizes that existing values, norms, principles and rules are about governing the action of humans and groups of humans as the key source of danger, not designed for algorithms. The EU warned “the technological nature of AI systems, and their upcoming features and applications could seriously affect how governments address four ethical principles: respect for human autonomy, prevention of harm, fairness, explicability.” Literally every government is adopting some form of ethical AI framework. The 2018 German AI strategy contains three commitments: make the country a global leader in AI, protect and defend responsible AI, and integrate AI in society while following ethical, legal, cultural and institutional provisions. Similarly, the 2019 Danish national strategy for artificial intelligence includes six principles for ethical AI: self-determination, dignity, responsibility, explainability, equality and justice, and development. It also provides for the establishment of a national Data Ethics Council. In 2021, the US launched the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative to ensure US leadership in the development and use of trustworthy AI. In 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.This June, the European Parliament passed the European Artificial Intelligence Act , which not only regulates commercial use of AI, but sets principles addressing government use of AI (e.g., limiting national surveillance technology). But What About Military AI? In most dystopian AI fiction, military AI takes over. We’re especially worried about Colossus, Skynet and Ultron, the most evil AI presented in film. In real life, most nations provide for separate governance of AI for defense and security. In 2020, the US Department of Defense, Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, adopted AI Ethical Principles for governance of combat and non-combat AI. The five principles are that AI is responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable and governable.

As the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) debates opens in New York City with the theme of “A Watershed Moment,” the world faces unprecedented and interconnected crises: a tipping point for climate change, the global pandemic, war in Ukraine, and runaway inflation. Despite these seemingly intractable problems, the UN argues that there are transformative solutions to these crises. We wholeheartedly agree. As investors, it is our job – a critical one – to seek innovations that solve real-world problems, especially in terms of environmental, social and governance ( ESG ) goals. Several of our investments actively tackle issues that are high on the agenda of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals . With this in mind, it is timely that we give a progress report in this mid-investment period: much of it exceeds our expectations, especially within ESG. As a firm, we actively support women . Four out of eight of our venture partners are women, and several of our companies are female-founded and led: Scopio , Whizmo and Vertical Harvest . A few high notes on our investments: Vertical Harvest (Jackson, Wyoming) Vertical Harvest actively works to promote sustainable agriculture that is local, and uses 90 percent less water and land. Consider the negative environmental impact of industrial agriculture and how climate change is impacting agricultural prices , and it is clear why farm efficiency is needed. Vertical Harvest’s urban vertical farms use AI and IoT to improve yields and build smarter cities in locations across the US, starting with its first farm in Jackson, Wyoming and planned expansion across the US. A whopping 100,000 pounds of produce are produced per year from only a tenth-of-an-acre plot of land and its employment scheme provides a model for the industry, as Vertical Harvest’s staff consists of 40% neurodiverse employees. The company was recently profiled on CBS This Morning , and was nominated by Fast Company as one of the Best Workplaces for Innovators . Elevated Signals (Vancouver) Elevated Signals is an AI-driven enterprise software platform that radically streamlines controlled environment agriculture (CEA) operations from seed to sale, increasing the environmental impact of CEA companies. Consider the impact better connectivity has on agriculture: a McKinsey report which chronicles the ways improvements in technology can yield massive agricultural growth: “Artificial intelligence, analytics, connected sensors, and other emerging technologies could further increase yields, improve the efficiency of water and other inputs, and build sustainability.” The report also states that greater connectivity would yield $500 billion in additional value in terms of global gross domestic product by 2030, creating efficiencies that would alleviate pressure on farmers. WayOut (Stockholm, Sweden) Wayout is an IoT enabled water purification technology system that fits within a shipping container, can be rapidly deployed almost anywhere on Earth and provides 3,000 people every day with perfect drinking and cooking water. Wayout leads the way in terms of providing a direct method of disrupting obsolete and aging infrastructure to serve the needs of people in remote areas. With IP complete, deployed systems and orders in place, and partners such as SIEMENS, Alfa Laval and Ericsson, it will meet orders globally. Profiled in WIRED magazine, WARP news, Forbes , the company aims to rid the world or water scarcity and stress, a massive problem to tackle, considering 1.1 billion people lack access to clean water, and much of the world still suffers from water-borne illness, such as cholera and typhoid fever. Whizmo (Canada/UAE/Costa Rica) A peer-to-peer mobile money platform that empowers the unbanked to receive, transfer, remit and pay value without having a bank account in emerging economies. Whizmo is like m-pesa for emerging economies such as Dubai and Costa Rica. Whizmo saves a great deal of time and money for people who otherwise wait in long lines to receive money, make remittances, or have to pay high fees. Consider the opportunities of financial inclusion , and its ability to lift billions out of poverty – especially women – as 1.4 billion adults have no access to banking according to the World Bank. Scopio (Los Angeles and New York) Female founders Christina Hawatmeh and Nour Chamoun are making waves in the creator economy, with their company Scopio, aka Scope it out. Allowing photographers from anywhere to sell their photos everywhere, it makes images – NFT, photos, and art – more accessible and diverse. The company’s platform empowers artists and creators in far-flung corners globally and Scopio recently published a book featured in Entrepreneur: The Year Time Stopped with HarperCollins. CEO Christina Hawatmeh was listed in the top 15 Entrepreneurs to follow in 2021 by New York Finance and co-founder Nour Chamoun was featured in the Forbes 30 Under 30.

Preamble Raiven Capital is a global early-stage technology venture capital fund that believes in the power of innovation. The fund seeks to strengthen the ecosystems that it invests in, building bridges and contributing to thought leadership in venture capital. The goal is to foster innovation and provide insight to founders across the world, contributing to their operational playbooks. This whitepaper summarizes findings from Raiven’s inaugural research project. In a world where the future of work is already here, we wanted to provide deeper insights into the changing work world. In addition, how do we understand and operationalize insights from across the literature? Raiven’s larger goal is to take a deeper look at how to support tech companies and navigate the landscape of remote work in a more nuanced way. Abstract The current state of business and organizational literature looks at the future of work and addresses best practices in hybrid and remote work, the changing workplace culture and the leadership required to lead in this complexity. Five startups participated in a two-hour scenario and transcripts of the sessions were analyzed according to established qualitative methodologies. The timed scenario involved a challenging situation a tech company would normally face. Partway through the scenario a change that increased the stress/urgency of the situation was introduced. Once the scenario was completed, the teams were each invited to debrief. A new theme that emerged from the research: an organization that creates a culture map for the whole team that lives within it and is based on a high emotional intelligence, is able to navigate the stressors of a remote work environment with more clarity, innovation and ease. In addition, the clearer the map for external relationships, the clearer the strategy is to address challenges that arise due to client needs. Companies that had a clear internal and external relationship map had better success. The tools bridged the gap of remote work to create better cohesion and symmetry within teams. Culture maps (internal) and relationship maps (external) became the “glue” that helped remote teams generate trust, communicate effectively, and work more efficiently and innovatively within teams. Background The future of work is a topic often addressed in business and tech literature. Discussion includes many trends and “how to” guides. Much of it focuses on a post-pandemic phenomenon: “The Great Resignation” which includes the 40% of tech workers that have left or planned to quit (Deczynski, 2021). The pandemic reinforced individuals’ beliefs – that their life had value and mattered. Work was not just a place to be. Now, employees want money, benefits, flexibility not just in days, but in how they spend their hours. They want a workplace that fosters creativity and collaboration, and offers a healthy workplace culture (Deczynski, 2021, Downs, 2021). People quit six-figure jobs to prioritize mental health and travel. They also began searching for fulfilling, flexible careers. The cult of being busy is no longer acceptable. People want life-work integration (Groff, 2021, Fox, 2021). Even the four-day work week is passé. The broader question: What does the organization need to actually “work?” How does it collaborate, meet individual differences and needs, foster productivity and happiness (Collin, 2021, Weikle, 2021)? How do leaders and organizations respond to navigate the complexity? The current literature falls into three main categories: hybridized or remote work, workplace culture, and leadership. Hybridized or Remote Work The literature reinforces that remote, or asynchronous environments can work, but what is critical is creating a culture that values it. Remote work will remain and account for 48% of the workforce by 2030 (Bleimschien, 2021). Communication is key. Team members must learn to navigate and communicate effectively across time zones and cultures. Collaboration styles may differ. Private communication is not helpful most of the time.Transparent work where others can see one’s work and pick up where others left off make most meetings unnecessary. If there are meetings, who attends? Are there minutes for review? Agreed upon deliverables provide measurable results (Tucker, 2021). Meetings should be in response to specific milestones; this fosters productivity (Carr, 2021). Each participant should have clear engagement and understand how to engage in advance of the meeting so that meetings are productive, and have full participation and buy-in (Steen, 2021). Note: a seamless flow of information between teams and immediate access to information and use of all technology is required for full participation (Bleimschein, 2021). Does remote work “work”? According to the research, it is built for cooperation not collaboration (Ramesh, 2021). Others argue that short-term productivity goes up, but long-term creativity goes down because there is a damper on collaboration and innovation. Real-time conversations and corridor chat are not often replicated in the virtual world (Stillman, 2021). Mentorship and developing new friendships become more difficult (Glasser, Cutler, 2021). Unplanned “collision conversations” are needed. These types of conversations are exciting, full of brainstorming and innovations (Glasser, Cutler, 2021). The literature states: “Workers want to work with people they like and in systems that engage them for the money they think they’re worth. A virtual experience that fails to deliver professional fellowship and intriguing challenge, will cause a worker to feel unconnected from their work.” Intentional collaboration is key (Carr, 2021). People need to make sense of things with one another. Humanizing experiences engender belonging and trust (Hobson,2021). Employee experience is just as important and can include virtual water cooler and townhall discussions, as well as socializing instead of agenda-based meetings (Hobson, 2021). Building a hybridized and remote work environment is not a one-size-fits-all. It is important to understand what models enable the best workflows, despite the history of the organization. Workplace Culture Workplace culture consists of tacit agreements about values, ethics and operations that shape the attitudes and behaviors within an organization. They define what is encouraged, discouraged, accepted nor rejected within a group (Groysberg, Lee, Price & Cheng, 2018). In post-pandemic digital workplaces, the culture is being redefined. Some workplaces always strived for ethics, integrity, wellness, creativity, diversity & inclusion. These values are now in high demand from employees and have become a factor in company resignations. Employees and investors value integrity. Honest brands are valued (Schwates, 2021). Employees want to belong and be recognized for accomplishments, while being able to accommodate family obligations (Ramesh, 2021). Mike Prokopeak, editor in chief of Reworked, noted that in the digital workplace, the human element of work is the most important. “The team we build, the people we develop and support, and the mission we choose to pursue together…It’s the values we share, the dreams we pursue together, and the quality of our relationships that will define whether or not we succeed.” (Rodgers & Nicastro, 2021, Williams, 2021). In other words, technology will only get us so far. The capacity to collaborate is the biggest predictor of a remote team’s success. Emotional intelligence is needed: who is best at what? What else is important: clearly defined leadership, communication, coordination, transparency, time management and responsiveness. Emotional intelligence is needed for effective meetings (Moore, 2021) and to navigate what is needed for remote work. Social skill and social perceptiveness are relevant too (Riedl, Malone & Woolley 2021, Moore, 2021). Leadership In the future of work literature, leadership needs to understand that remote and hybridized work is here to stay and requires a reframing: work is not just hours given. An employee’s engagement needs to be meaningful, not rote. It is important to shift to valuing productivity over longer days (Ramesh, 2021). Leaders need to challenge the assumptions that underlie facetime (Stockpole, 2021), and they need to respect time outside work. There must be mutual trust that work will get done, especially with flexible hours. An idea: evaluate work based on productivity, not time (Stewart, 2021, Rodgers & Nicastro, 2021). Leaders need to understand that creativity comes from incubating and shifting focus, so downtime is equally important to increasing productivity (Nova, 2021). This shift in thinking allows for upward mobility despite remote locations. Leaders need to think human centric and must have the skills to manage human differences (Carr, 2021). Creating a healthy and productive workplace culture is related to emotional intelligence. Creating a team of lifelong learners who possess self-leadership and interpersonal engagement is also key (Rodgers & Nicastro, 2021). Further, hybrid or remote work must be accessible to all, whether it be equipment for a home office, training on technology, or accessible child care, especially for women. Women end up being responsible for the majority of unpaid work for child care, home care or elder care when working from home (Youn, 2021, Hobson, 2021, Rooney, 2021). The Gap and the Research As was noted before, the literature states that the future of work is here, stressing that key high-level assumptions are shifting. Actions and attitudes need to follow in response. Technology is already at the cutting-edge of many of these trends. Qualitative analysis allows for a small sample size to show repeated themes. These reveal new insight that can only be found in listening to experience and deeper verbal content versus a question and answer-type analysis. The simulation began with a situation each team would address in their day-to-day operations, somewhat stressful, with some time pressure. Then, at the 30 minute mark, they were thrown a curveball. The new information in the scenario significantly increased the pressure. Each team had 1.5 hours to approach and resolve the situation together. Then, each team had the opportunity to debrief and reflect on their experience and their individual performance. Each section (the initial scenario, the curveball, and the debrief) revealed aspects about the team, their communication, their collaboration, and their ability to navigate remote work. What became clear: the less noise and more creativity possible through a seamless ability to navigate remote work, the more capacity the organization has to pursue its goals. The Results The results reinforced, but also went beyond the literature. The companies that solved the scenario well – understanding instructions, collectively and efficiently coming up with an approach and response to the initial scenario, approaching the crisis in a clear, calm way with an integrated solution – reinforced the current literature about remote work. The others failed to come to a solution. However, two crucial themes also emerged. The companies that were able to solve the scenario easily and successfully had a very clear internal culture map , which is the foundation for a very clear external relationship map . “Culture is the tacit social order of an organization: It shapes attitudes and behaviors in wide-ranging and durable ways. Cultural norms define what is encouraged, discouraged, accepted, or rejected within agroup. When properly aligned with personal values, drives, and needs, culture can unleash tremendous amounts of energy toward a shared purpose and foster an organization’s capacity to thrive” (Groysberg, Lee, Price & Cheng, 2018). When culture is embedded throughout the layers of the organization with behaviors, values, processes and operational actions and strategy, a “map” is created for the organization. It is a silent language that guides the journey, leading to ways that stakeholders, customers and clients relate, helping define the experience from beginning to end. The responses to company scenarios reflect that the culture map (inward facing) and the relationship map(external facing) become a glue that helps mitigate and manage conflict in remote work, communication and relationships. Specifically, as reflected in the literature, those companies that expressed emotional intelligence (self-perception, interpersonal skills, problem-solving and stress management skills) allowed a foundation for managing day-to-day relationships and approached crisis in a consistent and more efficient way that helped the teams feel connected and productive while giving a general sense of well-being. Beyond the mission and vision of a company, companies that handled the scenario most successfully had integrated and owned their vision. They built the culture map by sharing the vision collectively and individually. It did not exist just with a single or few people. There was a common sense of shared values that existed from a culture that engaged its people in an ongoing co-creation. While the vision may have stemmed from one person’s idea, the culture was now jointly held, at least to the degree of each person’s role. When the role of each team member was very clear. Each person knew each other’s strengths and weaknesses and how they fit together. There was clear camaraderie that allowed them to understand each other in nuanced ways. There was a shared understanding of differences in styles, culture, and personalities and they were able to manage time zones and were conversant with the shared technology. The companies that had cultures that reflected emotional intelligence (self-perception, interpersonal skills, problem solving and stress management skills) also were able to discuss vulnerability (within themselves and within their organization), gaps, ethics, relationships, and manage stress in a way that allowed these perceived challenges to become clear opportunities to address the gaps and problem solve to create better solutions or a better process. Culture maps defined roles and processes. These were often understood processes for crisis in communication, and clear channels, including platforms of technology, for communication. Rather than seeing them as negative, stressful situations were seen by these companies as another avenue to implement a strategic roadmap underpinned by an embedded culture. Creativity, communication and problem solving felt “natural”. The culture created bonding, a sense of shared values and trust, which was crucial, especially in a remote work environment. Leadership and engagement existed at all levels. The CEO took a secondary seat, inviting contribution and collaboration, waiting for synergy to create itself. Each member was equipped with the knowledge of all remote platforms/interactive technology used or needed. Each participant had a sense of logistics and priorities that the team needed to address the scenario. The culture and values being held by each team member allowed all voices to be heard or to speak up, all voices to challenge and question and all voices and contributions valued. Each person’s personality, area of expertise, and how their part fit into the whole was acknowledged. This clarity of what the cultural identity of the company is and is not, allowed most successful companies a greater sense of confidence. Teams took time to understand the scenario, grasp its implications for the team rather than plunging forward. They were able to assess the challenge in the context of who they were and apply it to their vision and culture to ensure that their approach matched who they were. This internal culture map led to a clear external relationship map. The companies that had the most success with the scenario were able to look at the customer/client and see who they were and create a clearer bridge to addressing the client’s needs and expectations in a way that was consistent with their culture. They were also able to assess if the client/customer was a fit and were ok with losing a client if it meant it was not a fit for the culture. They had a clear understanding of the experience they wanted their customer to have at each step with them and wanted to understand the impact of their approach on that experience. That external relationship map made it easier and more efficient to find solutions. In fact, it provided a foundation that allowed for more creativity in solving the crisis. At each choice point, these two maps: the “internal culture map” and the “external relationship map” became the foundation for decisions that allowed flow, ease and confidence. It created space for creativity,communication and a deeper capacity to analyze and solve the situation at hand. The fuzzier the internal culture map the fuzzier tackling the rest of the scenario became. What that means is that a number of organizational behaviors were affected on a varying basis. These included: an understanding of instructions, the roles individuals played, how they tackled the problems, how the team approached solutions, how the team discussed values, ethics, and managed themselves and each other. In companies where the leader still primarily held the culture, the conversation revolved around pleasing or supporting the leader’s vision. Dissent, challenge, looking at gaps or co-creation were less visible. Valuing and group dynamics were more unidirectional rather than collaborative and were not directed equally as members of the team. Communication didn’t have a flow. It was more haphazard. It took longer. Ironically, it required the leader to take more time and space to have to manage rather than having it held with the group. Gaps were often overlooked or there was inclination toward false bravado, relying on what worked, rather than a serious look at what wasn’t working. Without a clear culture map, it was also more difficult to test the gaps against where the company’s stated vision and culture and values indicated they wanted to be. There wasn’t as much confidence that allowed each person to contribute. They weren’t as able to see the client/customer needs and bridge to them. The less emotional intelligence and maturity within the team, the less insight they had about the process itself and its impact on creating solutions. The scenario highlighted that the clearer a company’s internal culture map and the clearer their external relationship map, the clearer the roles of each member were. Synergy existed and leadership was held within the whole team. Processes existed and unfolded more efficiently. The clearer the external relationship map, the better the understanding of the customer/client and the more they were able to execute their strategy to meet the experience they wanted the customer/client to have. Companies that valued emotional intelligence expressed more confidence and better communication. There was a sense of belonging, valuing and trust within the team. The internal culture map and external relationship map bridged the gap of remote work to create better cohesion and symmetry within teams. These initial qualitative findings indicate the relationship between clear culture maps and internal and external relationships. Maps impact the ability to deliver strategy. They also create ease in remote work environments, especially in the tech industry. Further research would be required both qualitatively and quantitatively to further validate these findings. In conclusion, the implication for venture capital funds’ portfolio companies: startups that have clear internal and external culture maps embedded by top leadership can handle stress, crisis and the uncertainty. They are more efficient, productive, innovative and creative. References Bleimschein, Benedict Inc. July 27, 2021. “Use This Pyramid Framework to Effectively Manage HybridTeams.” Carr, David F. Venture Beat. October 19, 2021 “Gartner Prescribes a Human-centric, Hybrid-Focus for the Future of Work.” Collin, Mathilde. November 9, 2021. POVL . “The 4-Day Workweek is Not the Future of Work. The Future is Flexibility.” Deczynski, Rebecca. September 27,2021. MSN. “The Great Resignation is Going to Be a Shock –Hitting Some Industries Harder Than Others” Downs, Sophie. Inc. “PwC Survey: Employers Struggling to Keep Up With Changing Employee Expectations.” Fox, Erica Ariel. Forbes. October 18, 2021. “Work-Life Balance is Over – The Life-Work Revolution is Here” Glasser, Edward and Cutler, David. The Economist. September 24, 2021. “You May Get More Work Done at Home. But You’d Better Have Ideas at The Office.” Groff, Bree. Fast Company. October 3, 2021. “Leaders Are Thinking About Hybrid Work in a One Dimensional Way. There is a Better Approach. Groysberg, Boris, Lee, Jeremiah, Price, Jesse, and Cheng, J.yo-Jud. Harvard Business Review, January, 2018 “Corporate Culture.” Hobson, Nick. Inc. November 5, 2021. “The Obvious Psychological Truth Left out of Most Future of Work Conversations.” Nick Hobson. Inc. November 17, 2021. “Microsoft Research Reveals the Biggest Downside to Remote Work and Here’s How to Address it.” Moore, Dene. Globe and Mail. December 28, 2021. “Emotional Intelligence Trumps IQ in the Workplace and Women Have More of It.” Nova, Annie. CNBC. December 26, 2021. “How We Work From Home Needs to Change in the New Year.” Ramesh, A.R. Entrepreneur Magazine. July 6, 2021 “Reimagining the New Mandate For the Future Workforce” Riedl, Christoph, Malone, Thomas W. and Woolley, Anita W. Oct 21, 2021. MIT Sloan. “The Collective Intelligence of Remote Teams.” Rodgers, Gabrielle and Nicastro, Dom. Oct 20 2021. CMSWire. “5 Takeaways from the Fall 2021 Digital Workplace Experience Conference.” Rooney, Katharine. The Future. October 13, 2021 “These 5 Themes are Shaping the Future of Work.” Schwantes, Marcel. Inc. June 29, 2021 “Warren Buffet Thinks You Should Hire For Integrity First.” Stewart, Ben. Fast Company, July 29, 2021. “This Should be the Remote Workers’ “Bill of Rights.” Steen, Jeff. Inc. February 16, 2022. “High Profile Study Reveals Why Most Meetings are Ineffective. It Only TakesOne Simple Step to Fix It.” Stillman, Jessica. Inc. September 20, 2021. “New Microsoft Study of 60,000 Employees: Remote Work Threatens Long-Term Innovation” Stockpole, Beth. MIT Management. July 27, 2021 “Digital Transformation After the Pandemic.” Tucker, Matt. Entrepreneur. July 24, 2021. “How to Create an Asynchronous Work Culture.”  Weikle, Brandie. CBC Radio. Dec 20, 2021. “Forget 9-5. These Experts Say the Time Has Come for the Results-Only Work Environment.” Williams, Shannon. Dec 27, 2021. IT Brief New Zealand. “The Future of Work is About People, Not Tech.”

At Raiven, we are happy to share that we had a great summer. It is also time to roll up our sleeves and get back to work. We’ve been on the move: traveling, meeting founders, investors, and seeking the latest technologies. This post is a recap – of our Nordic trip, where we learned about the latest in food and AgTech, and also our participation in the Collision Conference in Toronto. We also have some new investments that we are excited to share with you. NORDIC STOP: PASSION FOR FOODTECH We were delighted to spend time with Raiven LP and Advisory Group member Björn Öste in Stockholm and Lausanne. It goes without saying that he is a visionary foodtech entrepreneur and co-founder of Oatly, which went public last year. We also participated in two major conferences: The Future of Food Summit and Stockholm TECH Live 2022 . Björn gave the keynote presentation at FoodHack in Lausanne. His insights were inspiring: He spoke of the journey of Oatly and gave the crowd tips on navigating the food sector, strengthening the resolve of many founders on their entrepreneurial journey. Founders remarked that Björn’s talk gave muchto think about. He offered ideas for creating new products even when no market exists, noting that an IPO or acquisition may be tough to imagine for founders in the food space.

RAIVEN LEADS RESEARCH ON THE FUTURE OF WORK

OATLY CO-FOUNDER INVESTS IN RAIVEN CAPITAL