Better prepared founders. Fairer investment decisions. Research points to two problems in funding conversations. Women founders often present their businesses more cautiously than the facts deserve — not because of anything they do wrong, but because of how society has taught them to talk about themselves. And investors, without meaning to, often see women founders through a different lens. Rhopē works on both.
From a young age, women are rewarded for being modest and careful, and judged more harshly than men for sounding bold. It is no surprise that this shows up in funding conversations. Research finds that women founders often:
Studies summarised by the OECD show women typically start businesses with less capital and ask for smaller amounts — even when their plans are just as strong.
Words like "we hope to" and "a small but growing business" make real traction sound smaller than it is.
When asked what could go wrong, it is easy to get stuck defending the downside instead of turning back to the upside.
None of this is a personal failing. It is learned behaviour — and anything learned can be practised differently. That is what the rehearsal side of Rhopē is for.
Investors rarely set out to treat founders differently. But a well-known 2018 study of real investor Q&A sessions found a clear pattern: women were asked more questions about risk and what could go wrong, while men were asked more about growth and ambition. Answer a risk question and you talk about the downside; answer a growth question and you talk about the upside. Over a whole pitch, that changes how each founder comes across — and the study linked this pattern to the amounts raised.
This is unconscious bias: not bad people making bad decisions, but habits of questioning that nobody in the room notices. Because no one intends it, blame does not help — noticing the pattern does. That is what the audit side of Rhopē is for: it shows panels their own questioning patterns, in private, so they can give every founder the same chance to show potential.
Women typically start businesses with less money and ask for smaller amounts, even with equally strong plans. This says nothing about any individual founder’s ability — the aim is an ask that fits the business, not a bigger one for its own sake.
OECD — Bridging the finance gap for women entrepreneurs, 2025Read the source : OECD — Bridging the finance gap for women entrepreneurs, 2025 (opens in a new tab)Watching real investor Q&A at TechCrunch Disrupt New York (2010–2016), researchers found women were asked more about risk and men more about growth — and this pattern was linked to how much funding founders raised. The study observed real life rather than running a controlled experiment, so it shows a pattern, not proof of cause. It is also from 2018, so it may not describe every panel today.
Kanze, Huang, Conley and Higgins — Academy of Management Journal, 2018Read the source : Kanze, Huang, Conley and Higgins — Academy of Management Journal, 2018 (opens in a new tab)This report looks at how different groups see entrepreneurship. It is based on what people say about themselves, which is context, not a measure of any founder’s real ability. Rhopē works with the evidence a founder presents — it never judges her personality or how ambitious she should be.
OECD / European Commission — The Missing Entrepreneurs 2023Read the source : OECD / European Commission — The Missing Entrepreneurs 2023 (opens in a new tab)In this experiment, investors replied more positively to made-up start-ups with female-sounding founder names. That is about first replies to an email, not about who gets funded in the end — a reminder that bias does not look the same at every stage.
Management Science — randomised founder-outreach study, 2024Read the source : Management Science — randomised founder-outreach study, 2024 (opens in a new tab)This page is a plain-English summary of published studies. We link to the originals rather than hosting copies, and the full studies always say more than a summary can.
The 2018 study watched real events rather than running a controlled experiment. It shows a strong pattern between the questions asked and the money raised, but it cannot prove the questions alone caused the difference.
A handful of founders at one event is a conversation starter, not evidence of discrimination. Real conclusions need many events and fair comparisons of sector, stage and traction.
Questions about repayment and what could go wrong are a fair part of any funding conversation. The goal is balance: every founder should also get the chance to talk about potential.
Most of this research is about funding in general, not about rehearsal tools. Whether practising with Rhopē improves funding outcomes is something we still need to measure.
Evidence last reviewed October 2026. If a number on this page cannot be traced to a publisher’s own record, it is not used.