Still inappropriate after demo day. Investors are a tight knit group and retaliatory action is always a concern. The recent two exposes from two female founders both pointed to investors' power/influence as coercive factors, even if no specific deal is on the table.
It's maybe unfortunate it has to be this way, but investors should not hit on founders, full stop.
For those who didn't see this when it was making its way around, these are the two articles that have come up recently:
> When she asked why, he told her. “I don’t like the way women think,” he said. “They haven’t mastered linear thinking.” To prove his point, he explained that his wife could never prioritize her to-do lists properly. And then, as if he was trying to compliment her, he told Tucker she was different. “You’re more male,” he said.
This sounds like something a cartoon villain would say, but there's research that shows that the way men relate to their wives colors how they view women in their workplace. If you're a woman and your boss doesn't respect his wife's intellect, then it's going to be that much harder to make him respect your's.
I dunno where I'm going with this, but, if I were a manager and wanted to date a subordinate, I imagine I could quit, get a another job, and then ask the person out.[1] Is this route not available to an investor? Are they in the position of "permanent boss" to a founder?
This is a good plug for my general advice: make sure your employees have enough time to date outside of work.
[1] I never did this or was in a position to do this. And, speaking from general life experience, I would want someone to shake my shoulders vigorously and tell me "get over it, find someone else, there are plenty of fish in the sea," but people can't always see obvious things like this if/when they fall for someone.
Yeah, this is why I described it as "maybe unfortunate". I do believe there are roles where you will end up being "permanent boss" to a group of people, and short of losing all of your money/influence there's no way out.
A burden of being incredibly wealthy and influential, I suppose.
Since there are some founders who go through YC more than once, that's not good enough.
There are 6 billion people on this planet. It's not that hard to figure out as a YC investor: if it's a YC founder, they're no longer part of that pool. Period. I'm amazed at the amount of "but what if ..." discussion here
It's maybe unfortunate it has to be this way, but investors should not hit on founders, full stop.
For those who didn't see this when it was making its way around, these are the two articles that have come up recently:
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/gender-gap/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/07/what-it...