zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
As an investor, of course I clam up. I spend my days looking at the world in terms of risk-adjusted returns and cost benefit analyses, so why would I take a human capital risk? My entire business is based on my reputation and I've seen what happens to the men who get comments like "not the best with women at conferences" or "don't get him too close to your wife." It's limiting beyond your career.

I can count on two hands the number of women I would feel comfortable giving the exact same feedback to as I would a man. Women I can be candid with are women that I have 5+ year relationships with, have backed in some way, and who know I am truly looking out for them.

And the solution is blatantly obvious, but completely unpalatable. Let men grow the same way we believe women and minorities should be allowed to. A male engineering manager being too harsh with a female junior dev is a learning moment for the director of engineering to help the manager, not fire them.

And crucially the line is shifting more and more about what's "obviously fireable." Turns out harsh criticism of the quality of someone's work and the lack of improvement are rational, not an ad hominem. Those things are fixable. But criticism from powerful parties is now scrutinized as dangerous based on identity rather than for the content of the criticism.

>>joschm+9u
There is another side effect to this that I would add as a casual investor. My bar for getting involved in a US startup is much higher than it used to be, because it's hard to make uncomfortable changes that might be construed in the wrong way. I find myself investing more freely in other countries where there is more upside and less risk of a career-destroying media storm. China for example has all kinds of unique risks associated with its government, but these are more predictable. I think this may be the biggest long-term side effect to all of this stuff - the US loses its position as the place to do disruptive business.

>>ling3+Jw
I disagree pretty strongly, but obviously your experience is your own. If you are going into a hotly contested investment process, are you going to get away with asking for big uncomfortable changes? Probably not as you'll lose the round.

If you are already invested? I find it's pretty easy as I really am only looking to back people who are open-minded, receptive and coachable in the first place as I hope I am. One of the most common criticisms I make is that someone backed the wrong head of sales, head of growth, etc. and folks almost always hear me out because I can be quantifiable (sales metrics) and bring a solution (someone better).

>>joschm+0y
Companies I'm already working with - I've been in situations where the company would be better served with different leadership but it never happens because pushing for the changes is too hard and risky professionally for all involved. This is at least in part because of the culture shift that's happened in the US over the past decade or so.