To ensure robust decision-making, Eclipse requires that if a partner feels strongly against a potential investment, they must join the deal team alongside the champions. This forces a direct confrontation of the risks and ensures that by the time an investment is made, all major concerns have been addressed.

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.

Analyzing past failures, TA found that deals approved by lukewarm Investment Committee (IC) members led to poor outcomes. They now require enthusiastic IC support and add approved deals to the IC members' personal track records. This system aligns incentives and prevents conviction from overriding caution.

To ensure the "triumph of ideas, not the triumph of seniority," Sequoia uses anonymized inputs for strategic planning and initial investment votes. This forces the team to debate the merits of an idea without being influenced by who proposed it, leveling the playing field.

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.

A16z's growth fund avoids traditional investment committees, which can lead to politicization and slow decisions. Instead, it uses a venture-style "single trigger" model where one partner can champion a deal, encouraging intellectual honesty and speed.

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.

Sequoia makes consensus investment decisions, viewing each deal as "our investment." This is only possible through a culture of high trust and "front stabbing"—brutally honest, direct debate about a deal's merits. This prevents passive aggression and ensures collective ownership.

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.