Managing VCs is harder than managing corporate execs. VCs are high-IQ, disagreeable idea generators who dislike rules. The burden is on leadership to design an organization that minimizes conflict, as VCs can easily 'wreck each other's businesses' through competing investments, making interpersonal issues far more destructive.
Unlike a founder focused on one company, a VC operates at the nexus of disparate stakeholder contexts (LPs, portfolio crises, new pitches). This creates a unique 'whiplash' that requires deliberate systems for prioritization and mental management to be effective.
To predict the future health of a partnership, intentionally have difficult conversations before any investment is made. If you can't productively disagree or discuss serious problems before you're formally linked, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to do so when the stakes are higher post-investment.
Sequoia's founder taught that the best investments are in individuals who are both exceptional and "not so easy to get along with." These founders challenge convention and refuse to accept the world as it is, a trait that makes them unconventional but also uniquely capable of building category-defining companies.
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.
Instead of escalating disagreements, Atlassian's founders operated on a simple principle: if one couldn't be persuaded that an idea was good, it was likely not worth pursuing. This served as a critical decision-making filter and prevented major conflicts.
The power dynamic in venture capital can easily lead to arrogance. To counteract this, a16z implemented a daily ritual—a fine for being late to founder meetings. This constantly reinforces respect for the entrepreneur's time and prevents negative cultural drift.
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.
Unlike operating companies that seek consistency, VC firms hunt for outliers. This requires a 'stewardship' model that empowers outlier talent with autonomy. A traditional, top-down CEO model that enforces uniformity would stifle the very contrarian thinking necessary for venture success. The job is to enable, not manage.
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.
Proactively asking a potential investor how they navigate disagreements reveals their philosophy on board governance and CEO autonomy. Investor Alex Nihanky of Scale notes the CEO is the "runner" and the tie should go to them, but not all investors share this view. This question helps founders vet investor fit before a conflict arises.