Do any of these statements sound familiar?
“Your crazy ideas are bound to lead us astray!”
“I’ve heard enough from you, let’s move on to something more important.”
“There’s no time to listen to your ridiculous ideas.”
“I was saying… Wait, let me finish… Can you just let me explain?”
“This is just like last time — you messed up — it’s like your trademark move.”
Birthing a startup is no small feat. It’s an almost endless journey (figuratively speaking) that demands a heady cocktail of innovation, determination, and collaborative effort.
Having co-founded a start-up, I have experienced that the relationship between co-founders is at the heart of this endeavour to create a successful start-up! And while it may seem to the outside world that your co-founder and you share a healthy relationship, it’s most often not as flawless as perceived.
Effective communication and healthy conflict resolution are paramount in any relationship. However, as is the case with any close partnership, challenges can arise when constructive debates morph into jeopardizing conflicts.
In this article, I’m diving into the key differentiators between healthy discourse and toxic discord used too often between startup co-founders.
1. Assertion vs. Aggression: Setting the Tone for Dialogue
Being able to speak your mind is an admirable trait and in the case of a budding organisation, it is an absolute essential for survival. And founders should feel empowered to express their opinions and ideas. You’d be surprised by how many healthy debates lead to well-informed decisions and innovation.
However, this doesn’t give individuals the license to aggressive behaviour. If you think something is wrong or can be done better, you should be able to communicate this to your co-founder; instead of lashing out in a public setting.
The distinction lies in maintaining respect while challenging ideas. Remember Socrates’ wisdom: ask yourself if ‘is it true, is it kind or is it necessary’.
A one-off instance of aggression may end up corroding the foundation of friendship and collaboration that underpins startup co-founder relationships.
2. Communicating vs. Oversharing: Boundaries Matter
Open communication is pivotal, but over-sharing can blur professional boundaries. For example- keeping your partner in the loop and making sure you are on the same page regarding all major decisions — is great.
However, treating your co-founder as a close friend can strain the relationship. This happens when you start wishing being in business together and having a history of friendship will translate into your co-founder/ partner becoming a close friend who knows your personal and professional struggles. You may start seeking their validation in areas where you are the expert, you begin expecting them to respect your feelings in a professional debate and you take things more personally than you otherwise would.
Remember while camaraderie is essential, professionalism and respectful boundaries are equally important.
3. Honest Interaction vs. Crossing Boundaries: Know the Limits
Honesty is the bedrock of a successful co-founder partnership and clear, timely communication prevents misunderstandings — period.
If you’re able to create an atmosphere wherein you can share all necessary information with your partner, at the correct time, it means you’re doing something right. This would enable you and your co-founder to short circuit any difficulties that are headed your way.
However, the casual nature of pre-existing friendships can sometimes lead to crossing boundaries. And there is a dark side to most friendships as former friends end up taking a lot more liberties with each other than two colleagues in the same department would.
But there are do’s and don’ts that are especially relevant in a co-founder relationship. Crossing these boundaries may initially seem innocuous.
My advice is — don’t overstep, respect each other’s professional space, and avoid becoming a source of negativity within the relationship.
4. Disagreement vs. Rigid Resistance: Embrace Differing Perspectives
Assuming you are a startup founder, you are well aware of how painstaking the whole journey of just setting shop has been. You’re also brutally conscious of how fatal a single blow can be. This is why founders often expend a great deal of time and effort in fool-proofing every single decision. This is the right thing to do, no doubt.
And if your founder is countering your decisions for the sake of the company, it is in your best interest to heed their advice.
Differing viewpoints can enrich decision-making, but rigid resistance reflects an underlying issue. If one of the founders develops a superiority complex and considers themself on the moral high ground, every decision put up for their approval is disastrous and for every solution you offer they have a problem ready to go.
Here the disagreement is rooted in the need to prove the co-founder “wrong” or “incompetent” in not as harsh and confrontational manner, but passive aggressively and also looping underlings to create a sense of overpowering.
If one co-founder habitually dismisses ideas or undermines decisions, it can hinder growth. Healthy disagreements should seek to elevate the company, not prove the other person wrong!
5. Having Faith vs. Detachment: Striking the Right Balance
If only you had a penny for every time you called your company ‘your baby’!
I can relate, truly.
Yes, your company is like your child and you’ve put in all your sweat and blood in it. But it isn’t just your child. A healthy co-founder relationship entails that all co-founders trust and rely upon each other. This means that if co-founder A is in-charge of sales, A gets a final say in the matter. It also means that co-founders B and C mustn’t micromanage lower-level employees working on sales. Additionally, it means that while co-founder A will run past all major decisions past B and C, they must not try to control or monitor the nitty-gritties of the process.
Hence, trusting co-founders’ expertise is vital for smooth functioning. However, excessive detachment, where a co-founder doesn’t engage in decision-making, can lead to an unhealthy power dynamic.
While it is essential that each founder gets a comfortable playing field to maximise their potential, you are headed the wrong way if your co-founder doesn’t take interest in pertinent decision making.
Warning signs for this type of behaviour would be verbal signals like, “I’m fine with whatever you say”, “If you’ve okayed it, I don’t need to see it”, “Anything goes, I trust you” and non-verbal cues like lack of eye contact, persistent silence and lack of attention during major discussions
Balance is key — trust your co-founders, but maintain engagement and involvement.
6. Expertise vs. Omniscience: Expertise is Valuable, Not Absolute
Nobody likes to be a jack of all trades and queen of none! So as a founder you will definitely have your own area of expertise, as will your partners. So naturally while building a company, major tasks are divided according to each founders’ specific skill set.
While every co-founder must be confident and assertive in their area of expertise, they must be willing to pay heed to helpful feedback and upskill as and when required. As a lot of the initial years of a start-up require founders to quickly up-skill and adapt to new demands. In this way, a founder who is sure of the right way forward is an undoubted asset.
While a start-up does push all co-founders to up-skill in all possible directions and be in touch with all that goes on in the organisation, when a founder begins having a final saying all the matters, insisting that their way is the ONLY way or the only right way to do things, we come across the problem of omniscience, wherein one founder believes herself to be the know-it-all.
From an objective stance not only is this wrong, but also objectively impossible. But when you are in the middle of such toxicity, it is hard to understand that it is indeed a problem of the relationship and not the task at hand.
Confidence in your area of expertise is commendable, but believing you have all the answers is counterproductive. Acknowledge the value of others’ insights and be open to learning!
7. Ownership vs. Competing for Control: Fostering Accountability
If you’re a founder of an organisation, and even more so if you’re a co-founder of a start-up, owning up to one’s mistakes and taking responsibility for everything that goes haywire is a quintessential ingredient for success.
However, when you deflect blame and shun responsibility, you not only prolong the damage caused by a mistake, but also drastically reduce your reliability among your co-founders and other employees.
Taking ownership for mistakes that occur within your domain is very different from taking ownership of every decision made within the organisation. For clarity, let’s not mistake this as “Oh you’re the sales person, sales are low so you’re the bad co-founder”.
Ownership is not about assigning blame, but about delegating responsibility and distributing tasks in accordance with abilities. When one partner begins overseeing every task, micromanaging employees of another founder’s team, directing what should and shouldn’t be done, overriding the decisions of the founder in-charge of the task, we find ourselves in a position wherein one founder is seeking complete control.
Owning up to mistakes is crucial. Yet, claiming ownership of every decision can hinder collaboration.
Instead of micromanaging, focus on accountability within your own domain, fostering a culture of shared responsibility.
8. Flexibility vs. Lack of Structured Conversation: Balancing Informality
Most co-founders have a comfortable dynamic- they’re able to chat informally, maintaining an open-door policy. Having a discussion approach towards your co-founder relationship enables partners to quickly resolve miscommunications and fast track decision making.
Yet, have you ever noticed that despite your ability to engage with your co-founder freely and frequently, the initial issue persists? This is the flip side of the easygoing environment. It’s essential to recognize that not all challenges between co-founders can be effectively addressed through candid or emotional talks. In reality, these phrases often mask unfiltered, boundary-overstepping comments that feel more like talking past each other rather than genuinely communicating. This can sow the seeds of a toxic co-founder relationship.
While flexible communication indeed facilitates rapid issue resolution, it’s crucial not to rely solely on casual exchanges. Instead, consider structuring discussions around clear goals, avoiding emotional flare-ups that could undermine the co-founder partnership.
In conclusion, startup co-founder relationships require delicate balance and clear boundaries. Recapping- learn to embrace healthy debate, acknowledge each other’s expertise, and foster an environment of mutual respect. Avoid the toxic spiral of conflicts by maintaining open communication, adhering to boundaries, and keeping the company’s growth at the forefront of all decisions.
Remember, a strong co-founder partnership is a pillar of startup success, and it’s up to both individuals to nurture and protect it.
Authored by: Riti V. Srivastava
Leave a Reply