Recently I told an entrepreneur that we were not in a position to pursue an investment in his company because our partnership didn’t have consensus on the product he was building.
The entrepreneur wondered why we required consensus and doesn’t that just “dumb down” decisions.
I have heard over the years some venture capitalists at other firms recall that their best investments came out of the most controversial debates inside their partnerships. And that the investment only happened because someone slammed the table and forced the decision.
I suppose that model works for some folks but in my mind it’s not a true partnership. Also what does it tell the team inside the firm? One persons view is more important? Or what does it tell the entrepreneur? That the entire firm isn’t behind the mission?
In either case its not really a partnership. At least not in my mind.
And for what it’s worth the best investments at Spark have been times were our entire team was over the moon about the founder, product & mission.