Teams don't usually blow it away over petty issues. What they do is manage to ignore/avoid/be blind to serious issues for stretches, especially when things (on paper) seem to be going well.
When you're on the outside looking at a team, it must seem as if the members share a purposeful determination. And they often do. But just as often, the startup effort simply becomes a new norm, inhabited by human personalities, inclined towards squabbling just like dorm roommates.
Membership in a startup team can amplify drama as much as suppress it. It fuels personal squabbles with a sense of import. The best way to resolve the overwhelming majority of conflicts is to walk away and let them cool down naturally. But in a startup, it's easy to tell yourself "we have to resolve this problem right now; the fate of the company is at stake!"
It's also probably the case that a lot of long-term simmering "important" issues actually started out as manageable problems that could have been dealt with, but for poor conflict handling early on; either the issue is broached and turns into a scalding fight, or fear of that fight keeps the team from addressing it early enough.
You would think this would mean founders with stable marriages would have an advantage. :)
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.
* 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.
It's a little like suggesting that you're not filtering based on religion if you ban yarmulkes.
After the call I told him that was illegal here and he can't ask that question in an interview. He was shocked. He said Indian women are expected to devote time to their families once they are married. Single women have much more time to devote to the project and would be much better for our team.
I've known that women have been discriminated in this way for a long time, but I had never encountered it personally until then.
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.
And this was entirely in the context of a startup.