The Partner Pursuit: What Does It Really Take?

The VC industry continues to debate the merits of operators-turned-VCs.

Kleiner Perkins and Andreessen Horowitz, founded by operators, contrast sharply with career investors like Fred Wilson (USV), Mike Moritz (Sequoia), and Jim Breyer (Accel/ Breyer) showing that there's no one-size-fits-all formula for success in VC. In the US, the split between operator and non-operator VCs is roughly 50-50, lending credence to the advice that aspiring VCs should cut their teeth in a startup first.

But the landscape in Europe tells a different story. Here, partners like me - with operational experience - are the exception. Only 8% of European VC funds have operators at the helm. The typical advice for breaking into VC in Europe has long been "Go work in investment banking or consulting" - a mindset that has contributed to the diversity problem in our tech sector.

However, there's an emerging demand for founder/operator profiles in European funds. This shift acknowledges that while being the "best" in VC ultimately means delivering the highest return on invested capital, the path to achieving those returns is evolving.

So, what does it really take to become a partner in today's VC landscape? How does one navigate this journey, especially from an operational background? And how can aspiring VCs position themselves for success in an industry that's increasingly valuing diverse experiences?

Whether you're an operator considering a move into VC, or an aspiring investor trying to chart your course, I hope my experiences will provide valuable insights into what the partner pursuit really entails in today's venture capital landscape.

Operator to VC

My journey from operator to VC is one that I now realise was a career choice hiding in plain sight.

I started my career in investment banking, focusing on debt-financing across sectors in New York. While this gave me a solid foundation in finance and deal-making, I felt a pull towards the operational side of fast-growing, innovative brands. This led me to Uber, where I held multiple roles including executive positions at UberEats for the EMEA region, and later launching and scaling Uber's e-bike brand, JUMP, in the UK.

This transition was significant. I was rolling up my sleeves, building teams and solving real-world problems. Uber's meritocratic, get-stuff-done mindset was a polar opposite to banking. If you were passionate about building Uber, you contributed to growth. Period. While this operational role differed from banking I found a natural equilibrium through angel investing and advising female-founded startups as a side hustle, which then evolved into a passion. It was then I realised VC could be the perfect intersection of my skills and interests.

In a small industry without a known ‘playbook’ - I made it a point to understand what progression could look like as an employee (rather than founder) of a fund. This led to a surprise during my VC recruiting process. As an operator, progression was always measurable, but in VC, this seemed much more vague. ‘Building a track record takes a long time’, and there needs to be a tangible value add to entrepreneurs from day 0.

Ultimately, joining Cherry Ventures to build their UK practice proved the right move. I'm fortunate that Cherry shares my view that an operational background is a significant asset in VC. But the learning curve into venture is steep, even if you've raised VC before.

Both operators and investors navigate unpredictable business environments and need to capitalise on trends and cycles and hire/invest in great talent.But these professions also have distinct capabilities and different mindsets. The most valuable lesson from my operational days was adaptability. "Be water, my friend," as Bruce Lee said. Especially as a founder may need you to be there 24/7 during a fundraise process, stay out of their hair during a period of ‘build’, or discuss a co-founder split – possibly all at the same time!

One certainty I've discovered: success as a ‘builder’ doesn't guarantee an easy transition to VC. The skills are related but distinct, and the perspective shift required is significant.

VC to Partner

At its core, a Partner stewards the fund, responsible for its overall success. Partners shape the firm's strategy, build and maintain key relationships, and ultimately deliver returns to our LPs.

As a principal in Cherry’s new London office, I set clear expectations with the founding partners about wanting a path to partnership. This clarity of purpose proved crucial, as the road ahead presented significant challenges. Building the UK practice from the ground up offered a significant opportunity for differentiation, filling a clear geographic gap in Cherry's coverage.

To chart my course to partnership, I pushed for quarterly evaluations across five key areas:

1. Sourcing: I leveraged my operator network to identify promising startups, particularly in the UK where Cherry previously lacked presence.
2. Investment process: I developed a rigorous approach, combining my operational insights with financial acumen to evaluate opportunities.
3. Portfolio management: Post-investment, I applied my scaling experience from Uber and Kaluza to support our companies' growth.
4. Board membership: I provided strategic guidance, drawing on my experience launching and managing JUMP in the UK.
5. LP relations: I was involved in LP meetings from the start, always overprepared and ready to discuss our portfolio in depth.

This framework provided clear metrics for success – a rarity in the VC world. It allowed me to focus my efforts and track my progress toward partnership. Balancing these responsibilities required putting most personal obligations on hold - a considerable commitment considering I had a 4-month-old when I joined Cherry. However, this level of commitment is necessary for those aiming for partnership.

Cultural fit is also paramount in a partnership. At Cherry, transparency and equality among partners are valued. Unlike some firms where LP relationships are closely guarded by senior partners, Cherry encourages all partners to build these relationships. This openness was crucial to my rapid growth and integration into the firm.

One aspect that's rarely discussed but vitally important is the financial commitment. The GP commit forces you to consider your long-term commitment to the fund. Becoming a Partner often involves a significant GP commitment.

For those pursuing partnership, I strongly advise:

• Seek clarity on the path to partner from the outset. Cherry's transparency in this regard proved instrumental to my success.
• Understand the economics - how carry and buy-in work. This knowledge is crucial for making an informed decision about your long-term commitment.
• Be prepared to excel across all aspects of the role while leveraging your unique background. My operator experience served as a key differentiator, particularly in building our UK presence.
• Be upfront. Ask for transparency of pay and carry across partners.

At Cherry Ventures, we see real value in operator-led VC firms. Marc Andreessen's quip about operating being 90% action/10% thinking and investing being 90% thinking/10% action is provocative. While the exact split is debatable, his underlying point is clear: investors are inherently less hands-on in any single company compared to operators.

However, we've found that combining operational and investment perspectives creates a unique advantage:

• Operators-turned-VCs often have networks and insights that resonate with founding teams.
• Their operational experience helps in evaluating startups beyond just the pitch deck.
• Post-investment, they can offer practical support that builds trust with founders.

This blend of operational know-how and investment thinking is what makes operator-led VC firms stand out. It's why we've built Cherry Ventures this way.

The path to partnership isn't easy, but for those looking to shape the future of tech and entrepreneurship, it offers a chance to use their operational insights in a new and impactful way.