When a Principal Leaves, The GP Always Says The Same Thing

Welcome and happy Thursday.

Quick reminder: our survey closes on Saturday (Jan 31st).
Takes 2 minutes. Everyone who completes it gets the full results.
Click here to take the survey.
Thanks to all of you, who've already shared your input.

Now, let’s get to it.

When Barca lost Neymar to PSG, everyone knew it made Barca weaker. The news cycle ran for weeks. Pundits debated what it meant for their formation, their chemistry, their Champions League hopes.

But when a Principal leaves a GP, you don’t get that clarity.

The DDQ says someone departed. The GP says it was mutual and they wish them well. You're left wondering: was this the next star in the making, or someone who wasn't on a path to Partner anyway?

The standard GP answer is always the same: "They weren't on a promotion track. We'll be fine without them."

And sometimes that's true. Some turnover is actually healthy. It shows that promotion isn't automatic - that there's real selection happening internally. You want to see a GP where not everyone makes it to Partner.

The problem is distinguishing healthy turnover from talent bleed.

The obvious place to start is the attribution sheet. Which deals did this person work on? How did those deals perform?

But here's the issue: attribution is messy. Was this person the lead, or were they supporting someone else? Did they source the deal, or just execute? Did they drive the value creation, or show up to board meetings?

And at the Principal level, there's almost always a Partner in front of them who gets the deal attribution anyway. You can't tell from the outside Principal was actually leading the work or operating under the Partner’s umbrella. The sheet doesn't tell you what would have happened without them.

So you're left with a number that's technically accurate but lacking in nuance.

Of course, you can try to get signal from reference calls. Talk to co-investors. Talk to former portfolio company executives. Ask around.

But this puts a lot of pressure on your reference network. You need people who actually worked with this person, who'll be candid, and who have enough context to judge. That's three filters that don't always line up.

There’s also luck and interpretation risk involved - sometimes you reach the right person at the right time, sometimes you don’t.

You could also just call the person who left. We rarely got much out of that.

Problem is, most people won't be candid about why they really left - especially if it wasn't their choice. And if it was their choice, they're not going to tell you their former GP was falling apart or had succession issues. They want to preserve relationships.

So you get the same diplomatic answer: “Great experience, learned a lot, excited for the next chapter.”

Which tells you nothing.

Over the years, we developed a different approach. Instead of trying to assess someone's internal contribution - which we couldn't verify - we looked at where they went.