A typical VC fund's portfolio has a lifespan of 8-12 years. This is the amount of time the venture principals have told their investors that, after which, they'll start realizing the value of the portfolio. Funds typically have multiple portfolios active concurrently, and additional investors may come in throughout the initial stages of a fund (couple years).
There isn't any way around this: at the end of the day, VCs want a return in about a decade. That's their window. They absolutely will sacrifice the long-term success of a company in order to attain a positive return within that decade, because that's when their investors want to see a return. What most people don't realize is that VCs are, usually, just middlemen. Maybe a firm is started by someone hyper-rich, but even in cases like this, they're taking in external money from dozens of sources to build these checks they write to founders.
Of course, they're not evil. In everyone's ideal world, they can see a return in their window and the business can go on to be sustainable and amazing. But the world isn't sunshine and rainbows; if they have to choose between "maybe successful in 20 years" or "sell it and break even", they're going to force a sale (if they can). I've seen it happen first-hand about three times (though, in these cases I witnessed and many I'm sure: the businesses had become "zombie startups" and likely wouldn't have seen substantial growth even with more funding. an early exit was the best outcome for everyone involved. But, in one of them at least, the CEO was pretty angry at them.)
Different motivations AND different evaluations of the company and market between the VCs and the founders. Also different risks and rewards for the VC and the founders.
Sometimes the VC thinks that the market the startup is in is a bubble and the VC will push for growth over long term health. Sometimes the VC is right and sometimes they are wrong.
I've seen this play out where the VC pushed for growth probably to get acquired. The VC may have been mostly right since the market was a bubble that popped. One competitor was able to pivot though and ended up with 4X. Most competitors failed. Perhaps the VC wanted the money or perhaps the VC didn't believe in the founders.
Sometimes the startup has no market and then the VC may push for actions that lead to acquisition. Sometimes the founders demand additional incentives in the acquisition.
I've seen this play out since the VCs probably at best break even and want to wash their hands and the founders threaten to stop the deal since they lost out on salary and stock founding the company.
There isn't any way around this: at the end of the day, VCs want a return in about a decade. That's their window. They absolutely will sacrifice the long-term success of a company in order to attain a positive return within that decade, because that's when their investors want to see a return. What most people don't realize is that VCs are, usually, just middlemen. Maybe a firm is started by someone hyper-rich, but even in cases like this, they're taking in external money from dozens of sources to build these checks they write to founders.
Of course, they're not evil. In everyone's ideal world, they can see a return in their window and the business can go on to be sustainable and amazing. But the world isn't sunshine and rainbows; if they have to choose between "maybe successful in 20 years" or "sell it and break even", they're going to force a sale (if they can). I've seen it happen first-hand about three times (though, in these cases I witnessed and many I'm sure: the businesses had become "zombie startups" and likely wouldn't have seen substantial growth even with more funding. an early exit was the best outcome for everyone involved. But, in one of them at least, the CEO was pretty angry at them.)