When Egos get in the Way: The Unfortunate Reality of Founder Conflict

In a previous life I was a cofounder in a startup for nearly a decade.

Talk about the roller coaster ride of a lifetime!

There are literally thousands of memories I have from that adventure, but there’s one that stands out as it was a rather peculiar moment.

I was sitting with my cofounder opposite a team of potential investors. The meeting seemed to be going pretty well until about 45 minutes into the conversation when one of the investor team members looked up from scribbling in her notebook and asked, “So how often do you guys fight?”

“We’ve never actually had any major arguments”, I replied.

The dynamic in the room shifted immediately and the meeting was wrapped up pretty fast.

The next day we received an email advising us that that we were no longer being considered for their portfolio and that although they really liked our business model, and they liked us both as founders, they were concerned that we never clashed.

Should I have lied and told them we were constantly at each other’s throats? Who knows what might have transpired? That could have been my Sliding Doors moment.

Apparently we were quite an anomaly and that the startup world is rife with stories of founders coming together with grand visions only to find themselves entangled in conflicts that threaten the very core of their entrepreneurial dreams.

At the genesis of every startup is a shared vision – a collective dream that propels founders into the typically uncharted territory of entrepreneurship.

However, as the business evolves, so do the individuals driving it. Divergent visions and goals often emerge, leading to conflicts that can reverberate through the entire organisation, sometimes even resulting in the company’s implosion.

Interesting to think that these are the founders and startups that so many investors are keen to back!

Consider Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the cofounders of Apple. While they started the company together in a garage, the evolution of Apple saw Jobs and Wozniak grappling with differences in vision and leadership styles. Or the Facebook saga etched with the legal battle between Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin where an unequal partnership led to a legal settlement and a strained relationship that showcased the challenges of navigating founder dynamics.

From personal experience, founding a startup demands an unwavering commitment from all parties involved. However, when the burden is not evenly distributed, resentment can fester.

Disparities in effort, skills, or financial contributions can breed discontent among founders leading to clashes that jeopardise the very foundation of the dream.

When the roles and responsibilities of founders are unclear, chaos can also ensue. Role ambiguity within a startup sets the stage for misunderstandings, inefficiencies, and ultimately conflict.

Founder clashes can happen at various stages of a startup’s growth and may result from differences in vision, leadership styles, or other factors rooted in the complex dynamics of building and running a new venture. Resolving conflicts among founders requires open communication, a shared commitment to the company’s success, and sometimes, external assistance such as mediation.

Unfortunately, the reality is that founders often have strong personalities and a deep emotional investment in their startup, making it difficult for them to admit that mediation is needed to resolve potential issues.

While in the face of mounting conflicts, mediation stands out as a potential saviour, many founders hesitate to embrace this conflict resolution tool, often to the detriment of the startup.

The strong personalities inherent in founders can be both a driving force and a stumbling block. Ego and pride can hinder the recognition of mediation as a valuable resource which is when the fear of appearing weak or losing face becomes the barrier to conflict resolution.

The perceived time and cost associated with mediation can also dissuade founders from considering it as a viable option. This hesitation stems from a concern that engaging in mediation might impede the company’s progress or deplete crucial funds, particularly when resources might already be scarce.

Some founders will also harbour misconceptions about the nature of mediation viewing it as a form of therapy or counselling rather than a practical problem-solving approach.

There could even be concerns about the mediator’s impartiality or the fear that the mediator might favour one founder over the other. A clear understanding of the purpose and benefits of mediation along with building trust in the mediation process and selecting the right mediator can dispel these misunderstandings.

When any new business is created, particularly a startup, egos will inevitably clash. However, it is the founders who can rise above personal differences, embrace constructive conflict resolution, and adapt to evolving circumstances that stand the best chance of turning their shared vision into a lasting reality.