Why most VC firms hire associates wrong (and what we do instead)

I’ve spent the better part of 17+ years in venture capital, and in that time, one thing has become crystal clear: most venture firms have absolutely no idea how to hire associates. It's not just that they're bad at it — though they certainly are — it's that they fundamentally misunderstand what the role should be in the first place.

To illustrate how extreme the current state of things is, I have it on good authority that a well-known venture firm recently held a partner meeting to decide whether their associates should be allowed to speak during internal meetings. They ultimately decided yes (how generous!), but the fact that this was even a question tells you everything you need to know about how most firms think about junior talent. 

Things wouldn’t be so bad if the role of these apparently “lowly” associates was just an internal one. But the reality is quite the opposite: associates are disproportionately the first interaction that a founder will have with a venture firm. Associates are often the faces of the firm, taking first calls, attending conferences, and (increasingly lately) writing content. So if you don’t think they are even worthy of opening their mouths internally, why would you give them a metaphorical badge to run around representing your firm externally?

The answer reveals a deeper problem with how the industry approaches associate hiring, and creates a system that makes no sense for anyone involved.

‍

The Two Schools of Thought (And Why One Is Broken)

There are essentially two ways venture firms hire associates, and the difference couldn't be more stark.

School One: The Leverage Model. This is the investment banking / private equity approach. Hire smart people for two years, assume they're not sticking around, give them no real upward mobility (except in rare cases), and use them to get work done that partners don't want to do. It's a pyramid structure: senior partners at the top, mid-level people in the middle, and lots of junior people at the bottom, all fighting for the next rung up. Incentives are a mess, and as a consequence, there’s next to zero trust within the organization. And as a bonus for the associates, it’s a lot of fun to work at a firm like this!

School Two: The Development Model. Bring people into your network early, train them over time, and the best ones become partners. This requires actual investment in people, and accordingly means you can't hire as many of them. It also forces you to be highly selective in who you bring on as the opportunity cost of the hire is the primary expense. 

Here’s a simple test to tell which model a given VC firm has chosen: look at the associate-to-partner ratio at a fund. If associates outnumber partners, they almost certainly have no real influence. If there are only a few associates alongside a bunch of partners, chances are they have a voice.

Most firms default to the Leverage Model because it’s easier: more hands on deck, no need for real mentorship, and when associates churn out after two years — that was the plan. But then why hire them at all? If partners don’t value their judgment, they’re just wasting everyone’s time. There are cheaper, more efficient, and more aligned ways to outsource the work that partners don’t want to do. 

This dynamic not only hurts the associates, but also makes life (even) more confusing for entrepreneurs. Founders don't know whether to take associates seriously (hence the monthly Twitter debates about founders giving VC associates "time of day" – like this one). The confusion is entirely the fault of VCs  for creating a role with no clear purpose or authority.

‍

Why Most Firms Get the Hiring Wrong

But it gets worse. Most venture firms don't actually know what makes a good VC, so they default to lazy heuristics: Ivy League degree  + “hot” company + former product manager = good hire. Over the years I’ve shared advice with dozens of senior partners looking to hire associates into their firms. I’m perpetually surprised by (many of) their inability to answer the question “what are you looking for?”

This happens because most people hire either someone like themselves or someone they aspirationally wish they were. Without a clear framework for what actually makes someone good at venture capital, you end up with a bunch of people who look impressive on paper but may have no business being VCs.

‍

The Amplify Approach: Fewer People, More Investment

At Amplify, we’ve flipped the pyramid. We intentionally have more senior people than junior people. You can’t exceed one associate per partner and expect those associates to have real influence.

We treat our associates as future partners, not glorified chiefs of staff. That makes us incredibly selective. Their ideas become part of our firm’s DNA, so we only hire people we’re willing to bet on long-term.

If you look at fields outside of VC, the idea that an entry level role (associates) end up becoming the best leaders is pervasive. There is no shortage of public companies out there where the CEO has been at the company for 30+ years, starting at the bottom like everyone else. 

It’s also true in sports. Look at Sean McVay, the youngest head coach in NFL history. He started as an "offensive assistant"—basically the NFL equivalent of fetching coffee. Then he was a quality control coach for a team nobody's heard of that doesn’t even exist anymore. But once you're in the system, mobility becomes exponential. Within a few years, he went from quality control to tight ends coach to offensive coordinator to head coach of the Rams – where he went on to win Coach of the Year and Super Bowl LVI!

Venture is no different. Every job comes with a call option—the chance to become partner. Once someone’s in the ecosystem and proves themselves, opportunities multiply.

‍

What We Actually Look For

Everyone talks about hiring for intelligence, integrity, and social skills—that's just table stakes (the RSTLNE of venture hiring, if you will). What really matters are the unique qualities that make someone good at this weird, wacky job. Here is what I believe they are.

Curiosity is probably the most overlooked quality. In venture, you’re going to meet a lot of companies, most of whom you won't invest in. You need genuine curiosity that lets you bring the same energy to the first meeting of the month as the hundredth. Not only that, but technology is always changing (hello AI!). Learning about something new can’t be a chore. It needs to be something that excites you!

Authenticity matters because venture is fundamentally a relationship business. You're not selling software or cars—you're selling yourself over long periods of time. We often meet the best people years before they start companies, so your ability to build genuine, lasting relationships determines everything.

Hustle and humility round out the core four. Humility because that's just who we are as a firm—we keep our heads down and let our work speak for itself. Hustle because it's the one thing you can actually control about yourself. You can't change how smart you are, but you can choose how hard you want to work. And when I look at some of our best deals, they required unbelievable levels of persistence to get done.

‍

Finding the Right People

We don't post job descriptions. Instead, we meet lots and lots of people—entrepreneurs, operators, other VCs—and we're always making it clear what kind of people we're looking for. Eventually, people develop a sense of who you are and start funneling the right candidates your way.

The best early-stage investors are collectors of people. Some people collect wine; others Pokemon cards. Really good VCs collect people because they're genuinely curious about what makes different people tick, and they're authentic enough that those relationships stick. But of course, this doesn’t work if you just treat associates like glorified assistants.

The collection metaphor also explains another big part of how we hire. One of the biggest differences between how we approach hiring and how most firms do it is that we're open to serendipity. Some of our best hires came from completely unexpected places and weren't even looking for venture jobs when we first met them.

The key is being ready to meet lots of people and being honest about the type of person you're looking for. Not everyone is going to be the right fit, and that's fine. But if you put yourself out there and maintain authenticity in your relationships, the right people have a way of finding you.

‍

Why This Matters

The associate role is often the entry point for the next generation of great VCs. If we keep treating it as a transient chief of staff instead of a meaningful apprenticeship, we're going to end up with an industry full of people who learned the wrong lessons about what venture capital should be.

The firms that figure out how to hire and develop great associates will have a massive advantage in seven to ten years when those associates become the senior partners leading the industry. The firms that don't? Well, they'll be the ones posting job descriptions for "dynamic self-starters who thrive in fast-paced environments" while wondering why all the good people keep going elsewhere.

The irony, of course, is that the solution has been hiding in plain sight all along: hire fewer people, invest more in each one, and—here's the radical part—actually listen to what they have to say.

‍