Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Requiring unanimous or majority approval in investment committees leads to mediocre, mean-regressing decisions. The most controversial deals are often the best performers. A "champion model," where a single partner can push a deal through despite dissent, is more effective.

Related Insights

Relying on consensus to make decisions is an abdication of leadership. The process optimizes for avoiding downsides rather than achieving excellence, leading to mediocre "6 out of 10" outcomes and preventing the outlier successes that leadership can unlock.

To improve decision-making, BlackRock's investment committee, guided by a behavioral scientist, uses autonomous voting to prevent peer pressure. It also mandates a non-voting "challenger" to play devil's advocate and champion a pre-mortem perspective, ensuring dissent is valued.

Great investment ideas are often idiosyncratic and contrary to conventional wisdom. A committee structure, which inherently seeks consensus and avoids career risk, is structurally incapable of approving such unconventional bets. To achieve superior results, talented investors must be freed from bureaucratic constraints that favor conformity.

Unlike committees, where partners might "sell" each other on a deal, a single decision-maker model tests true conviction. If a General Partner proceeds with an investment despite negative feedback from the partnership, it demonstrates their unwavering belief, leading to more intellectually honest decisions.

Peter Thiel structured Founders Fund to avoid the mediocre, consensus-driven deals that result from partnership voting. Believing all venture profits come from a few improbable moonshots, he empowered individual partners to make unilateral, high-conviction investments. This contrarian approach allows them to back outliers that a committee would reject.

Large, contrarian investments feel like career risk to partners in a traditional VC firm, leading to bureaucracy and diluted conviction. Founder-led firms with small, centralized decision-making teams can operate with more decisiveness, enabling them to make the bold, potentially firm-defining bets that consensus-driven partnerships would avoid.

Bessemer's investment process favors individual partner conviction over group consensus. A partner can "pound the table" for a deal (the "gold nugget") without the risk of another partner vetoing it (the "blackball" model). This fosters ownership and bold bets, with performance as the ultimate accountability.

To foster contrarian thinking and prevent groupthink, Lux Capital allows each investment partner one "silver bullet" per fund. This enables a partner with deep conviction to make an investment even without team consensus, mitigating the risk of missing a brilliant, non-obvious opportunity.

The romanticized idea of a dramatic "investment committee" meeting is a myth. The most effective investment process is collaborative and iterative, where an idea is pitched early and gains momentum across the firm over time. The formal meeting becomes a rubber stamp for a decision that has already been organically reached.

Sequoia's internal data shows consensus is irrelevant to investment success. A deal with strong advocates (voting '9') and strong detractors (voting '1') is preferable to one where everyone is mildly positive (a '6'). The presence of passionate conviction, even amid dissent, is the critical signal for pursuing outlier returns.