6 ms·

tptacek, whenever I read your stuff, I think "he gets it". I bet stable founders have more stable relationships with their SO's. Dave Ramsey writes about how

tptacek, whenever I read your stuff, I think "he gets it". I bet stable founders have more stable relationships with their SO's. Dave Ramsey writes about how his company uses dinners with spouses as a part of their interview process. They won't hire anyone "married to crazy". They also fire anyone who cheats on their spouse. I found his book quite misogynistic and offensive (not to mention having the worst title ever), but I wonder if he's onto something. The idea of YC (or any company) using personal relationships as part of their filtering process makes me extremely uncomfortable, but it's interesting to think about.

spaghetti 14y ago
I was just thinking about this today. To interview a potential co-founder I'd have a meal with the person and their SO. Then I'd observe the dynamic between them. Does the potential co-founder treat the SO poorly? Or is it reversed? Ideally they treat each other well. But there's more subtle hints to observe. Do they interrupt each other? If so what's the fallout? The point is to assess the person's "people skills." I think "people skills" or in general "emotional maturity" is by far the most important factor in someone you need to work with on an intense level. Be that co-founder, SO etc.
- salemh 14y ago
  Or how they treat the staff at a dinner. Many other routes vs making some people uncomfortable that you may "require" a dinner with a SO. If they don't have a SO, what, invite a friend to an interview?
  - spaghetti 14y ago
    Good point. I wouldn't formally require the SO. I'd just phrase the invite to make it clear that my SO and I would like to have dinner. If they have an SO but don't bring them that's another potential signal (could be good or bad).
- rdl 14y ago
  The whole idea some people have of meeting a cofounder a few times (especially in an artificial environment like a hackathon) and then making an all-of-nothing decision is flawed, IMO. The best process is to spend a LOT of time with the person, and work with him on progressively larger projects. Yes, how they interact with people is an important factor, but I'd try to spend many months (or years) on the process, not a few meals.
mammalfriend 14y ago
I wouldn't take on a cofounder/exec hire/major investor without spending a little time with them and their partner. Not because I think I'll detect some red flag, but because my wife is great at reading people and might observe something important.
wglb 14y ago
To sort of support this, I know a VC that won't work with any divorced person until two years after the divorce. He says it takes that long to get back on course. And he has been through one, so he knows.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I understand that investing in a person is very different from employing them, but this still creeps me out. It would be disturbing to see this become another valley meme (it is probably illegal to discriminate against employees based on marital status, for what it's worth).
  - rayiner 14y ago
    For a place that exists because of an engineer field, the Valley seem pretty prone to cargo cult thinking, fads, and superstition.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - aptwebapps 14y ago
      I get your point, but there a lot of non-engineers in this business. I'm also not sure that engineers have that much of an edge in avoiding cargo cult behavior over other professions with a similar overall level of education and compensation. I'm talking about engineers as a class, not an idealized Engineer.
  - wglb 14y ago
    Was not in the valley; actually in the midwest. And this was entirely in the context of a startup.
- mwetzler 14y ago
  Wow. Getting divorced seems rough enough already; sucks to be judged unemployable on top of that.
tptacek 14y ago
Dave Ramsey probably either doesn't really do this or has never asked a lawyer about it, and is in any case offering incredibly bad advice. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of marital status. When you invite a candidate out to dinner with their spouse and then later decline them, you've communicated two things: * That you were serious enough about the candidate to take them and their spouse to dinner; in other words, that you were probably inclined to hire them. * That it is possible that the dinner, which only could have been an issue for candidates with spouses, had something to do with the decision not to hire. Investment decisions are very different from employment decisions. You can probably discriminate against investment opportunities for any reason whatsoever, including race or religion. But dinners with spouses as part of an interview process seems like a great way to get sued repeatedly.
- guelo 14y ago
  IANAL but I don't believe marital status falls in the protected category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Not federally, but yes, for purposes of employment, in many states including California, New York, Illinois, and Washington.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - makomk 14y ago
    As tptacek says, many states do ban discrimination on the basis of marital status, and they have a good reason to - historically most businesses refused to employ married women at all on the rather sexist basis that they should be at home raising kids.
    - clarky07 14y ago

spaghetti 14y ago

I was just thinking about this today. To interview a potential co-founder I'd have a meal with the person and their SO. Then I'd observe the dynamic between them. Does the potential co-founder treat the SO poorly? Or is it reversed? Ideally they treat each other well. But there's more subtle hints to observe. Do they interrupt each other? If so what's the fallout? The point is to assess the person's "people skills." I think "people skills" or in general "emotional maturity" is by far the most important factor in someone you need to work with on an intense level. Be that co-founder, SO etc.

salemh 14y ago
Or how they treat the staff at a dinner. Many other routes vs making some people uncomfortable that you may "require" a dinner with a SO. If they don't have a SO, what, invite a friend to an interview?
- spaghetti 14y ago
  Good point. I wouldn't formally require the SO. I'd just phrase the invite to make it clear that my SO and I would like to have dinner. If they have an SO but don't bring them that's another potential signal (could be good or bad).
rdl 14y ago
The whole idea some people have of meeting a cofounder a few times (especially in an artificial environment like a hackathon) and then making an all-of-nothing decision is flawed, IMO. The best process is to spend a LOT of time with the person, and work with him on progressively larger projects. Yes, how they interact with people is an important factor, but I'd try to spend many months (or years) on the process, not a few meals.

mammalfriend 14y ago

I wouldn't take on a cofounder/exec hire/major investor without spending a little time with them and their partner. Not because I think I'll detect some red flag, but because my wife is great at reading people and might observe something important.

wglb 14y ago

To sort of support this, I know a VC that won't work with any divorced person until two years after the divorce. He says it takes that long to get back on course. And he has been through one, so he knows.

tptacek 14y ago
I understand that investing in a person is very different from employing them, but this still creeps me out. It would be disturbing to see this become another valley meme (it is probably illegal to discriminate against employees based on marital status, for what it's worth).
- rayiner 14y ago
  For a place that exists because of an engineer field, the Valley seem pretty prone to cargo cult thinking, fads, and superstition.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - aptwebapps 14y ago
    I get your point, but there a lot of non-engineers in this business. I'm also not sure that engineers have that much of an edge in avoiding cargo cult behavior over other professions with a similar overall level of education and compensation. I'm talking about engineers as a class, not an idealized Engineer.
- wglb 14y ago
  Was not in the valley; actually in the midwest. And this was entirely in the context of a startup.
mwetzler 14y ago
Wow. Getting divorced seems rough enough already; sucks to be judged unemployable on top of that.

tptacek 14y ago

Dave Ramsey probably either doesn't really do this or has never asked a lawyer about it, and is in any case offering incredibly bad advice. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of marital status. When you invite a candidate out to dinner with their spouse and then later decline them, you've communicated two things: * That you were serious enough about the candidate to take them and their spouse to dinner; in other words, that you were probably inclined to hire them. * That it is possible that the dinner, which only could have been an issue for candidates with spouses, had something to do with the decision not to hire. Investment decisions are very different from employment decisions. You can probably discriminate against investment opportunities for any reason whatsoever, including race or religion. But dinners with spouses as part of an interview process seems like a great way to get sued repeatedly.

guelo 14y ago
IANAL but I don't believe marital status falls in the protected category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
- tptacek 14y ago
  Not federally, but yes, for purposes of employment, in many states including California, New York, Illinois, and Washington.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- makomk 14y ago
  As tptacek says, many states do ban discrimination on the basis of marital status, and they have a good reason to - historically most businesses refused to employ married women at all on the rather sexist basis that they should be at home raising kids.
  - clarky07 14y ago