> What goes unsaid, is that only the actual partners in the fund get any carry, associates just get a comfortable salary and the prospects of becoming a partner (at another firm obviously)
"(at another firm obviously)" — I've heard this in other discussions about VC careers too. Why is it the case?
Any of the first three options will help sell LPs and founders on your new fund by bringing along some brand name credibility. It’s a harder sell when you are promoting from within, especially as associates do not have experience raising money from LPs.
Another reason: Venture firm partnerships are inherently political environments and perception matters. It is akin to why grad students are discouraged from becoming professors at the same school they got their PhD from. It’s hard to escape from the shadow of your mentor and find your own footing.
There a few other reasons that promotions are rare, but they do happen. A16Z used to have a rule where no one internally would be promoted to be a GP because they only wanted to have former operators be partners (they have now since changed that policy https://a16z.com/2018/07/17/connie-chan/)
https://vcstarterkit.substack.com/p/how-vcs-choose-twitter-b...
it should be obvious why. there's no more room (nor need) at the top. if you wait for it, you are not waiting for your skills to be recognized, you are waiting for someone to die.
Timing is very important, and it's likely that another VC firm has more opportune timing than the one you are currently at.
I have no insider knowledge but I guess it might be due to glass ceilings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling
Probably best to stop there then, as this has nothing to do with it.
"It’s hard to escape from the shadow of your mentor and find your own footing."
"It’s a harder sell when you are promoting from within..."
"A16Z used to have a rule where no one internally would be promoted to be a GP..."
From where I come from, the term glass ceiling is not just limited to women but all forms of discrimination at workplace denying someone/anyone a rise up the ranks. In the US, the term seems to be exclusively used in the domain of gender dynamics.
> The metaphor was first coined by feminists in reference to barriers in the careers of high-achieving women.[0]
> "A glass ceiling" represents a barrier that prohibits women from advancing toward the top of a hierarchical corporation.[0]
> That may be how you use the term
That's the thing: It's not just me, but the entire country where I work, doesn't limit its usage to gender or minority.
> but that's not what the term means.
"a situation in which progress, esp promotion, appears to be possible but restrictions or discrimination create a barrier that prevents it."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/glass+ceiling
"Invisible but real barrier through which the next stage or level of advancement can be seen, but cannot be reached by a section of qualified and deserving employees. Such barriers exist due to implicit prejudice on the basis of age, ethnicity, political or religious affiliation, and/or sex."
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/glass-ceiling.h...
"Since becoming commonplace in contemporary language it [glass ceiling] has become generally applied to obstacles encountered in any field and by any group"
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/glass-ceiling.html
"a point after which you cannot go any further, usually in improving your position at work"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/glass-ce...
To your point in the other related thread about the usage of the term glass ceiling, there's nothing discriminatory about this specific practice in the VC community. No matter the gender, race, sexual orientation, or whatever other metric you'd use to describe an associate that could in theory be used to discriminate, a VC firm does not have an incentive to promote from within, and actually has incentives not to do so as described by another poster.