Article
The Conflict That’s Killing Your Startup
December 5, 2024
It’s Monday morning, and the leadership meeting is already off the rails. Sales is frustrated with Product for delivering a “half-baked” feature. Product fires back, blaming Engineering for missing deadlines. Engineering shifts the blame to Support, claiming that they’re drowning in unresolved customer complaints. Voices are raised, tempers flare, and the founder—the supposed leader in the room—watches silently, hoping it will all blow over.
Sound familiar?
Conflict like this isn’t just a bad day at the office. It’s a cultural cancer that erodes trust, drains energy, and can tear a company apart if left unchecked. And yet, too many founders avoid addressing it. Whether it’s fear of confrontation, lack of time, or simply not knowing where to start, the result is the same: festering tensions that hurt the team and, ultimately, the business. Here’s the truth: conflict is inevitable in startups. But how you handle it determines whether it becomes your Achilles’ heel or your secret weapon.
The Founder’s Paradox: Bold Vision, Fear of Confrontation
Founders are often fearless in the face of business challenges but retreat when faced with interpersonal disputes. This paradox is pervasive: the same people who challenge markets, disrupt industries, and battle competitors will freeze when asked to mediate a disagreement between two key team members.
One founder I worked with was described by his team as “reluctant to wade into any disagreement unless it became a full-blown crisis.” His aversion to conflict was so pronounced that, when tensions arose between his engineering and marketing teams, he simply delegated the problem to his COO. Weeks later, the COO resigned, citing exhaustion from being the company’s de facto conflict manager.
Another one of my coaching clients struggled with a toxic relationship between two senior team members. She let it fester for months, hoping they’d resolve it on their own. Instead, the situation spiraled, culminating in one of the employees quitting and taking half the team with them. The fallout from her inaction left her shaken. “I thought I was avoiding a tough conversation, but I was really creating a much bigger problem,” she admitted later.
Why do founders avoid conflict? There are three primary reasons:
The result? Neglect. And as any leader who has ignored conflict knows, unresolved issues don’t go away—they grow.
The Three Deadly Patterns of Founder Conflict Avoidance
Founders don’t all handle conflict the same way, but three problematic patterns emerge repeatedly:
1. Neglecting the Problem
The most common response to conflict is doing nothing at all. Many founders believe that if they ignore a problem long enough, it will solve itself. One leader let a months-long disagreement between his head of product and his CTO linger without intervention. By the time he stepped in, the two leaders were barely on speaking terms, and product development had ground to a halt.
2. Picking Sides Some founders attempt to resolve conflicts by quickly picking a winner. While this approach may seem decisive, it often backfires. As one employee put it, “Our CEO tends to take sides in arguments, which leaves one person feeling deflated and the other emboldened. It destroys trust and discourages honest conversations in the future.”
3. Delegating Without Ownership
Other founders assume conflict resolution isn’t their job, offloading it to COOs or HR leaders. While delegation is often necessary, conflict resolution requires the founder’s involvement to set the tone and establish cultural norms. As one executive remarked, “He thinks dealing with conflict is beneath him, so it festers until someone else is forced to clean it up.”
Why Conflict Is an Opportunity in Disguise
Here’s the irony: conflict isn’t inherently bad. In fact, when managed well, it can be one of the most powerful tools for growth and innovation.
Consider the story of a startup where the sales and product teams were locked in a constant tug-of-war. Sales wanted quick fixes to address customer complaints, while Product focused on long-term innovation. The tension was palpable, with both sides blaming each other for the company’s slowing growth.
The founder, initially paralyzed by the situation, was coached to see the conflict as an opportunity rather than a threat. By bringing both teams together and facilitating a discussion about shared goals, the founder discovered that the root issue wasn’t the teams’ competing priorities but a lack of a shared product roadmap. With this clarity, the teams collaborated on a plan that balanced immediate customer needs with strategic objectives. The result? Improved morale, better alignment, and a faster path to growth.
Conflict, when reframed, becomes a lens through which hidden problems can surface. It forces teams to question assumptions, refine strategies, and align on what truly matters.
The Founder’s Framework for Conflict Resolution
Transforming conflict from a liability into an asset requires a deliberate shift in mindset and behavior. Here’s a practical framework for founders:
1. Reframe Conflict as a Catalyst
Conflict isn’t a failure—it’s a signal that something important needs attention. Instead of avoiding disagreements, lean into them as opportunities to surface new ideas and align your team.
Another founder who led a fast-growing tech company, struggled with this. His team had grown reluctant to challenge her decisions, fearing his sharp reactions. He misinterpreted their silence as agreement—until a major product launch failed. The post-mortem revealed that his team had withheld critical feedback to avoid confrontation.
Realizing his mistake, he adopted a new approach. He began framing disagreements as a chance to improve: “If we’re all nodding in a meeting, it means we’re missing something. Let’s challenge each other to find the best solution.” This mindset shift transformed his team’s culture, making debates more constructive and decisions more robust.
2. Address the Root Cause
Most conflicts are symptoms of deeper issues. A disagreement about deadlines may actually be about misaligned priorities. A clash between department heads might stem from unclear roles or resource disparities.
One founder dealt with recurring tension between his product and sales teams. At first, it seemed like a straightforward dispute about feature delivery timelines. But through structured conversations, he uncovered a deeper issue: the lack of a shared roadmap. By addressing this root cause, he not only resolved the immediate conflict but also prevented similar issues from arising in the future.
Ask yourself: What’s really driving this conflict? Digging deeper often reveals systemic problems that, once addressed, can strengthen the entire organization.
3. Create a Safe Space for Disagreement
Psychological safety—the belief that it’s safe to speak up without fear of punishment—is the foundation of effective conflict resolution. Without it, conflicts either escalate into personal attacks or remain hidden until they explode.
Another coaching client learned this the hard way. His team had developed a culture of silent resentment, with employees avoiding tough conversations for fear of reprisal. With coaching, he implemented ground rules for meetings, such as:
These small changes created an environment where disagreements were seen as a natural and necessary part of collaboration.
4. Follow Through
Conflict resolution doesn’t end with a handshake. Lingering emotions and doubts can undermine even the best agreements. Following up ensures that resolutions stick and builds trust over time.
Another client who founded a SaaS company, had a habit of declaring conflicts “resolved” and moving on. His team often felt otherwise, citing unresolved tensions that resurfaced later. By implementing a simple follow-up process checking in with both sides a week after each resolution—He began building a culture of accountability and trust.
The Ripple Effect of Better Conflict Management
When founders embrace conflict resolution, the benefits ripple through the entire organization. Teams become more cohesive, decision-making improves, and the company culture shifts from avoidance to accountability. But the impact goes beyond business metrics, it transforms the founder as well.
As one leader reflected, “I used to see conflict as a distraction. Now I see it as a chance to strengthen our team and refine our vision.”
Your Call to Action
Conflict is inevitable, but how you handle it is a choice. Will you avoid it, letting it fester and grow? Or will you face it head-on, turning it into a source of growth and innovation?
This week, take one step toward better conflict resolution:
The choice to embrace conflict isn’t easy, but it’s the mark of a true leader. And in the high-stakes world of startups, it’s a skill you can’t afford to ignore.
Sound familiar?
Conflict like this isn’t just a bad day at the office. It’s a cultural cancer that erodes trust, drains energy, and can tear a company apart if left unchecked. And yet, too many founders avoid addressing it. Whether it’s fear of confrontation, lack of time, or simply not knowing where to start, the result is the same: festering tensions that hurt the team and, ultimately, the business. Here’s the truth: conflict is inevitable in startups. But how you handle it determines whether it becomes your Achilles’ heel or your secret weapon.
The Founder’s Paradox: Bold Vision, Fear of Confrontation
Founders are often fearless in the face of business challenges but retreat when faced with interpersonal disputes. This paradox is pervasive: the same people who challenge markets, disrupt industries, and battle competitors will freeze when asked to mediate a disagreement between two key team members.
One founder I worked with was described by his team as “reluctant to wade into any disagreement unless it became a full-blown crisis.” His aversion to conflict was so pronounced that, when tensions arose between his engineering and marketing teams, he simply delegated the problem to his COO. Weeks later, the COO resigned, citing exhaustion from being the company’s de facto conflict manager.
Another one of my coaching clients struggled with a toxic relationship between two senior team members. She let it fester for months, hoping they’d resolve it on their own. Instead, the situation spiraled, culminating in one of the employees quitting and taking half the team with them. The fallout from her inaction left her shaken. “I thought I was avoiding a tough conversation, but I was really creating a much bigger problem,” she admitted later.
Why do founders avoid conflict? There are three primary reasons:
- Fear of Escalation: Many founders believe that addressing conflict will make things worse.
- Perceived Distraction: They see interpersonal issues as secondary to the “real” work of building a business.
- Emotional Avoidance: Navigating human emotions can feel uncomfortable and overwhelming.
The result? Neglect. And as any leader who has ignored conflict knows, unresolved issues don’t go away—they grow.
The Three Deadly Patterns of Founder Conflict Avoidance
Founders don’t all handle conflict the same way, but three problematic patterns emerge repeatedly:
1. Neglecting the Problem
The most common response to conflict is doing nothing at all. Many founders believe that if they ignore a problem long enough, it will solve itself. One leader let a months-long disagreement between his head of product and his CTO linger without intervention. By the time he stepped in, the two leaders were barely on speaking terms, and product development had ground to a halt.
2. Picking Sides Some founders attempt to resolve conflicts by quickly picking a winner. While this approach may seem decisive, it often backfires. As one employee put it, “Our CEO tends to take sides in arguments, which leaves one person feeling deflated and the other emboldened. It destroys trust and discourages honest conversations in the future.”
3. Delegating Without Ownership
Other founders assume conflict resolution isn’t their job, offloading it to COOs or HR leaders. While delegation is often necessary, conflict resolution requires the founder’s involvement to set the tone and establish cultural norms. As one executive remarked, “He thinks dealing with conflict is beneath him, so it festers until someone else is forced to clean it up.”
Why Conflict Is an Opportunity in Disguise
Here’s the irony: conflict isn’t inherently bad. In fact, when managed well, it can be one of the most powerful tools for growth and innovation.
Consider the story of a startup where the sales and product teams were locked in a constant tug-of-war. Sales wanted quick fixes to address customer complaints, while Product focused on long-term innovation. The tension was palpable, with both sides blaming each other for the company’s slowing growth.
The founder, initially paralyzed by the situation, was coached to see the conflict as an opportunity rather than a threat. By bringing both teams together and facilitating a discussion about shared goals, the founder discovered that the root issue wasn’t the teams’ competing priorities but a lack of a shared product roadmap. With this clarity, the teams collaborated on a plan that balanced immediate customer needs with strategic objectives. The result? Improved morale, better alignment, and a faster path to growth.
Conflict, when reframed, becomes a lens through which hidden problems can surface. It forces teams to question assumptions, refine strategies, and align on what truly matters.
The Founder’s Framework for Conflict Resolution
Transforming conflict from a liability into an asset requires a deliberate shift in mindset and behavior. Here’s a practical framework for founders:
1. Reframe Conflict as a Catalyst
Conflict isn’t a failure—it’s a signal that something important needs attention. Instead of avoiding disagreements, lean into them as opportunities to surface new ideas and align your team.
Another founder who led a fast-growing tech company, struggled with this. His team had grown reluctant to challenge her decisions, fearing his sharp reactions. He misinterpreted their silence as agreement—until a major product launch failed. The post-mortem revealed that his team had withheld critical feedback to avoid confrontation.
Realizing his mistake, he adopted a new approach. He began framing disagreements as a chance to improve: “If we’re all nodding in a meeting, it means we’re missing something. Let’s challenge each other to find the best solution.” This mindset shift transformed his team’s culture, making debates more constructive and decisions more robust.
2. Address the Root Cause
Most conflicts are symptoms of deeper issues. A disagreement about deadlines may actually be about misaligned priorities. A clash between department heads might stem from unclear roles or resource disparities.
One founder dealt with recurring tension between his product and sales teams. At first, it seemed like a straightforward dispute about feature delivery timelines. But through structured conversations, he uncovered a deeper issue: the lack of a shared roadmap. By addressing this root cause, he not only resolved the immediate conflict but also prevented similar issues from arising in the future.
Ask yourself: What’s really driving this conflict? Digging deeper often reveals systemic problems that, once addressed, can strengthen the entire organization.
3. Create a Safe Space for Disagreement
Psychological safety—the belief that it’s safe to speak up without fear of punishment—is the foundation of effective conflict resolution. Without it, conflicts either escalate into personal attacks or remain hidden until they explode.
Another coaching client learned this the hard way. His team had developed a culture of silent resentment, with employees avoiding tough conversations for fear of reprisal. With coaching, he implemented ground rules for meetings, such as:
- Encouraging dissenting opinions with phrases like, “I’d love to hear why you disagree.”
- Prohibiting interruptions during discussions.
- Validating emotions while keeping the focus on solutions.
These small changes created an environment where disagreements were seen as a natural and necessary part of collaboration.
4. Follow Through
Conflict resolution doesn’t end with a handshake. Lingering emotions and doubts can undermine even the best agreements. Following up ensures that resolutions stick and builds trust over time.
Another client who founded a SaaS company, had a habit of declaring conflicts “resolved” and moving on. His team often felt otherwise, citing unresolved tensions that resurfaced later. By implementing a simple follow-up process checking in with both sides a week after each resolution—He began building a culture of accountability and trust.
The Ripple Effect of Better Conflict Management
When founders embrace conflict resolution, the benefits ripple through the entire organization. Teams become more cohesive, decision-making improves, and the company culture shifts from avoidance to accountability. But the impact goes beyond business metrics, it transforms the founder as well.
As one leader reflected, “I used to see conflict as a distraction. Now I see it as a chance to strengthen our team and refine our vision.”
Your Call to Action
Conflict is inevitable, but how you handle it is a choice. Will you avoid it, letting it fester and grow? Or will you face it head-on, turning it into a source of growth and innovation?
This week, take one step toward better conflict resolution:
- Facilitate an open dialogue in your next team meeting.
- Check in with an employee about a tension you’ve been avoiding.
- Reflect on your own approach to conflict—are you neglecting, picking sides, or delegating without ownership?
The choice to embrace conflict isn’t easy, but it’s the mark of a true leader. And in the high-stakes world of startups, it’s a skill you can’t afford to ignore.
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles
Startup founders represent the ultimate paradox: celebrated for their innovative brilliance yet notoriously susceptible to failure. In reality, the difference between astronomical success and dismal failure boils down to a surprisingly consistent set of behaviors and personality traits. Drawing from extensive 360 feedback studies, personality assessments, and deep insights from Founders Keepers, we've unraveled exactly what separates winners from losers in the startup world. Myth-busting: Genius Jerks Rarely Prevail A common myth persists that successful founders must be narcissistic, domineering, and abrasive—the stereotypical "genius jerk." Yet, our rigorous analysis of data from 122 founders, comparing the top performers (at least 10X returns) with bottom performers (zero returns), decisively shatters this myth. Successful founders, contrary to popular belief, rarely succeed because of egocentric ruthlessness. Instead, they thrive due to their extraordinary adaptability, relationship-building skills, disciplined execution, and deep personal grounding. Meanwhile, unsuccessful founders often implode because of their rigidity, isolation, impulsivity, and inability to truly lead teams. Adaptability: The Endless Pursuit of Product-Market Fit Successful founders understand one critical truth: product-market fit isn't a finish line; it’s a continuous process. They show an exceptional ability to: Remain open to input, eagerly soliciting and integrating team feedback. Effectively manage resistance, empathetically addressing team concerns. Skillfully create buy-in, building commitment through transparency and genuine engagement. In contrast, unsuccessful founders typically fail due to rigidity. They stubbornly anchor themselves to outdated strategies, ignore valuable feedback, and react defensively to challenges, eventually becoming roadblocks in their own companies. Relationship Building: From Loners to Leaders A pivotal distinction lies in the ability to work effectively through others. Successful founders consistently excel in empowering their teams. They: Delegate effectively, granting autonomy while clearly defining expectations. Maintain trust through consistent behavior, integrity, and transparency. Develop robust emotional intelligence, adeptly managing conflict and strengthening team cohesion. Unsuccessful founders, on the other hand, struggle profoundly with delegation. Their chronic micromanagement erodes trust and morale, creating environments of fear and resentment. They often isolate themselves, failing to build genuine relationships, thus missing critical insights and innovations their teams could provide. Execution: Discipline Over Charisma Execution—arguably the most underrated pillar of startup leadership—truly separates winners from losers. Successful founders meticulously: Set clear, measurable, and achievable goals. Follow through relentlessly, holding themselves and others accountable. Create robust systems and processes to scale effectively. Conversely, unsuccessful founders typically suffer from chronic disorganization and impulsivity. Their inability to prioritize, constant pivots without strategic clarity, and poor follow-through generate chaos and stifle growth. Personal Grounding: Stability Amidst Chaos Perhaps most counterintuitively, successful founders exhibit deep personal grounding—a trait seldom highlighted in sensational startup narratives. They: Demonstrate emotional resilience, remaining composed under extreme stress. Exhibit patience, tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty with grace. Maintain optimistic yet realistic perspectives, avoiding destructive cycles of anxiety or panic. Unsuccessful founders, however, often spiral under pressure. Their volatility and emotional reactivity exacerbate crises, leading to poor decision-making and destructive interpersonal dynamics. Self-Awareness: The Hidden Driver of Success Underpinning all these traits is profound self-awareness—arguably the most critical competency of all. Successful founders consistently seek self-improvement, humbly recognizing their weaknesses and proactively addressing them. They actively solicit honest feedback, never fearing the vulnerability required for growth. Unsuccessful founders, conversely, often display a tragic lack of self-awareness. Their denial of shortcomings, defensiveness to feedback, and unwillingness to evolve ultimately doom their startups. Real-World Wisdom: Voices from the Trenches Beyond the data, the human stories captured in 360 feedback illustrate these differences vividly: Successful founders receive praise like, “He constantly solicits input, adapts swiftly, and builds deep trust. His humility makes everyone want to follow him.” Unsuccessful founders, by contrast, earn harsh critiques: “He ignores input, reacts defensively, and insists on controlling every detail. The team is disengaged and demoralized.” These narratives underscore the simple but powerful truth that the best founders aren't isolated geniuses—they’re skilled leaders who build environments where everyone can thrive. The Path Forward: Turning Insights into Action If you're a founder, investor, or leader within the startup ecosystem, confront these truths head-on. Assess yourself and your organization rigorously: Are you truly adaptable, or merely superficially agile? Are you empowering your team, or stifling their potential? Are you executing with discipline, or flailing with chaos? Are you grounded emotionally, or reactive and volatile? Are you genuinely self-aware, or defensively delusional? Final Thoughts Ultimately, founder success isn’t about flashy charisma or ruthless ambition. It’s about a disciplined commitment to growth—both personal and organizational. Embrace adaptability, deepen your self-awareness, and master the art of leadership grounded in trust and integrity. This is not merely good advice—it’s the proven difference between a startup’s spectacular success and its avoidable failure. What traits do you see defining successful and unsuccessful founders in your experience? Let's discuss!
We’ve all seen the headlines: visionary founders, celebrated one day, indicted for fraud the next. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX, Trevor Milton of Nikola—each a cautionary tale. But why does this keep happening? More importantly, how can investors and venture capitalists spot the red flags before disaster strikes? After decades coaching startup founders and executives, and through intensive psychological profiling research in my book, Founders Keepers, it’s clear that the qualities which make founders extraordinary can also lead them into ethical peril. Ambition Gone Rogue Ambition is the engine of innovation, but when unchecked, it can spiral into something destructive. Elizabeth Holmes, once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, turned ambition into deception, sacrificing integrity for the illusion of success. Her willingness to misrepresent Theranos's technology eventually led to fraud convictions and a 11-year prison sentence. Similarly, Trevor Milton fabricated demonstrations of Nikola’s hydrogen-powered trucks, deceiving investors and regulators alike. Ambition that isn’t tempered by reality becomes toxic, pushing founders to prioritize appearances over substance. Narcissism and the Cult of Personality A striking number of fraudulent founders exhibit narcissistic traits. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is disturbingly common among indicted entrepreneurs like Holmes, Adam Neumann, and Billy McFarland. These individuals have inflated self-worth, entitlement, and a troubling lack of empathy—traits that enable them to manipulate investors, employees, and markets. Adam Neumann’s charismatic leadership at WeWork masked a self-serving agenda. He leased his own properties to WeWork and indulged in extravagances funded by investor capital. His eventual downfall underscores a critical point: charisma and confidence, unchecked by accountability, can devastate companies. Pressure, Risk, and Rationalization Founders operate in pressure cookers. Investor demands, market competition, and internal expectations can distort ethical boundaries. Under such strain, founders rationalize questionable decisions—initially minor, then increasingly severe. Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX saga exemplifies this slippery slope. Praised for his effective altruism, he secretly diverted customer funds into his own hedge fund, creating one of history’s largest financial implosions. Under extreme pressure to perform, ethical lines blurred into oblivion. The Dark Triad and Founder Psychology Research identifies a psychological pattern—the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Founders exhibiting these traits manipulate, charm, and dominate others effortlessly. Their moral compasses malfunction, viewing ethics as mere obstacles. Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals raised drug prices mercilessly, justified as smart business. He ultimately faced securities fraud charges. This combination of manipulative charm, moral disengagement, and ruthless pragmatism frequently ends in corporate ruin. Red Flags Investors Can’t Ignore VCs and investors must vigilantly recognize signals of potential ethical crises: Accountability Gaps: Founders who deflect blame, resist feedback, or evade responsibility when faced with failures. Deceptive Fluency: Founders who remain intentionally vague, changing narratives to fit different audiences, lack transparency, and dodge specifics. Weak Governance: Companies lacking robust financial controls, passive boards, or weak compliance protocols enable founder misconduct. Excessive Charm: Overly charismatic leaders who evade scrutiny, foster cult-like devotion, and dismiss ethical concerns as trivial. Case Study: When Good Intentions Go Bad Consider Charlie Javice the Frank founder. Desperate to sell her startup, she fabricated millions of fake users, deceiving JPMorgan into a $175 million acquisition. Ambition, pressure, and opportunity collided disastrously, underscoring that even well-intentioned founders can fall if ethical vigilance wanes. Prevention through Awareness and Systems To mitigate these risks, investors must foster cultures of accountability. This means: Rigorous Due Diligence: Deep vetting of founder histories, not just their pitch decks. Transparent Governance: Enforcing independent oversight, clear reporting, and stringent ethical guidelines. Balanced Teams: Encouraging founders to build leadership teams empowered to challenge decisions. Healthy skepticism, combined with robust systems, creates a strong firewall against unethical behavior. Redemption and Self-Awareness Not all troubled founders are irredeemable. Many need interventions—coaching, accountability partners, and structured feedback—to prevent ethical slippage. Self-awareness is key. Founders who reflect on their blind spots and acknowledge limitations have a far better prognosis. Investing Wisely Means Looking Deeper The stark truth for investors is this: brilliance without integrity is dangerous. Investing isn't merely betting on ideas; it's assessing character. The cost of ignoring red flags is staggering, not just financially, but reputationally and ethically. Ask yourself one simple question when evaluating founders: If they weren't successful, would their behaviors still seem acceptable? The answer reveals everything. The line between visionary and fraudster is thin. Vigilance, skepticism, and structured accountability are critical tools in protecting your investments—and ensuring the next headline isn't about your portfolio.
Founders live in a world of chaos. It’s exhilarating, intense, and downright terrifying. You’re constantly shifting between the thrill of new ideas and the crushing weight of responsibility. Every decision feels like a life-or-death moment for your company, and the stress is unrelenting. Yet, amid this madness, there’s one thing that determines whether you’ll thrive or crash and burn: personal grounding.
STAY UP TO DATE
GET PATH'S LATEST
Receive bi-weekly updates from the church, and get a heads up on upcoming events.
Contact Us
