Limited Partners, much like VCs searching for outlier founders, are often looking for fund managers who are "a little off." They value investors who think differently and don't follow the consensus, as this non-traditional approach is seen as the path to generating outsized returns.

At IVP, even when a partner is passionate about a deal, the firm encourages them to 'sleep on it' after a debate. This deliberate pause allows the partner to process the team's feedback without pressure, often leading to a more rational assessment of their own conviction and preventing investments driven by emotion rather than collective wisdom.

Sequoia operates on a consensus model where every partner must agree for an investment to proceed. A single "no" vote can kill a deal. This high-stakes process forces deep conviction, though partners can be convinced to override their own negative intuition if the rest of the team is overwhelmingly positive.

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.

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.