Hiring Women in VC Isn't a Shortlist Problem

Venture capital firms spend weeks assessing a founding team. How did they meet? Can they attract the people they will need next? Do they develop the talent they hire?

Few funds apply the same scrutiny to how they build their own investment teams.

I spent four and a half years inside Cherry Ventures, working on hiring for portfolio companies and for the fund itself. During that time, other funds asked me to advise on their talent functions. One pattern came up often. Funds put real effort into getting women onto the shortlist, and much less into what happened after the appointment.

Yet that is where investment careers are made. Who works on the strongest deals, who is credited with sourcing, who presents to the investment committee. For funds across DACH and the UK, hiring more women means looking at the whole career, not just the moment of hire.

The UK has moved further than DACH, though progress thins out at the top. The BVCA and Level 20's 2025 report found that women held 40% of junior, 36% of mid-level and 23% of senior investment roles in UK venture capital, up from 19% at senior level in 2023.[1]

The DACH picture is starker. Level 20's September 2026 report found that women held 14% of senior VC investment roles in Germany, 15% in Switzerland and 27% in Austria.[2] In Germany, that is fewer than one in seven. Austria's figure rests on a small sample of 30 firms, so a single appointment moves it noticeably.

The reports cover different years and measure representation rather than hiring rates. The direction, however, is clear.

An investment track record depends on access to opportunity. Who is invited onto the most promising deals? Who gets credit for sourcing? Who takes a board seat, builds relationships with LPs, and has a partner actively making the case for their promotion?

Inside a fund, these decisions are rarely formal. They happen in the weekly partner meeting, in who gets the call when a deal comes in, in who is introduced to the founder. That informality is where gaps open, usually without anyone intending it.

Funds should look at how these opportunities are allocated, alongside promotion criteria, compensation and carry. Parental leave needs practical planning too: who covers the portfolio, and how the person returns to meaningful responsibility rather than a quieter role.

Leadership composition matters here. Across PE and VC, Level 20 found that women made up 32% of investment professionals in offices with at least one senior woman, against 16% in offices with all-male senior teams.[2] That is an association, not proof of cause. But candidates notice who sits at the top of a fund.

It matters for the companies a fund backs as well. The UK's Investing in Women Code Annual Report 2025 found that 36% of deals went to teams with at least one female founder where investment committees were at least half female, compared with 30% where they were not.[3] Again, an association rather than a causal finding.

Experienced candidates assess the substance of a role as closely as its title.

Will they originate and lead deals? Present to the investment committee? Work directly with founders? Receive carry, and on what terms? What would they need to show to progress?

In the searches I run now, the strongest candidates raise these questions early. A fund that cannot answer them clearly loses those candidates, often without realising why. A senior title with little decision-making scope is hard to reconcile with a promise of long-term advancement.

Three practical disciplines make the difference.

Define the capability before the candidate. A brief can exclude good people before anyone is approached. Investment experience, a technical degree, a particular university, an established network and a fixed number of years may each sound reasonable. Together, they narrow the field to a familiar profile. Start with what the person needs to deliver: technical diligence, access to a founder community, commercial judgement or scaling experience. Then separate genuine requirements from familiar credentials.

Search beyond the partners' networks. Referrals produce good candidates, but if every introduction comes from the same circles, a fund cannot know it has seen the available talent. Mapping should cover other funds, operating businesses, founder communities and specialist networks. In DACH, ask whether German fluency and an office requirement reflect the work itself. In the UK, a London base, an existing VC title or a recognisable employer should earn their place in the brief.

Assess investment judgement consistently. Give candidates comparable information, a consistent set of core questions and criteria agreed before interviews begin. A proportionate case exercise shows how someone evaluates a market, tests assumptions and explains a decision. For candidates from operating roles, distinguish unfamiliarity with investment terminology from weak reasoning. And ask for evidence behind feedback. "Commercial", "confident" or "a good fit" tells the team little without an example of what the candidate actually did.

No fund would back a founding team that hired only from its own network and had no plan to develop its people. The same standard should apply to the partnership.

For VC firms across DACH and the UK, the priorities are practical: define the capabilities the strategy needs, search widely, assess consistently, and give every new hire a real route to responsibility. Hiring more women becomes sustainable when those appointments come with the chance to build a track record, influence investment decisions and progress within the firm.

To discuss building your investment team across DACH and the UK, contact Tatiana Russo at tatiana@keysearch.com.

[1] BVCA and Level 20, Diversity in UK Private Equity and Venture Capital 2025, pp. 5 and 9. UK VC figures refer to 148 firms and 1,112 investment professionals. Report

[2] Level 20, European Gender Diversity Report 2026, September 2026, pp. 3, 16, 27 and 44. Country figures use the VC-specific column. The office-level leadership association combines PE and VC and excludes the UK. Report

[3] UK Government, Investing in Women Code Annual Report 2025, p. 33 (PDF page 35), reporting 2024 signatory data. Report