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:

  1. Fear of Escalation: Many founders believe that addressing conflict will make things worse.
  2. Perceived Distraction: They see interpersonal issues as secondary to the “real” work of building a business.
  3. 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

The Courage to Confront: How Real Leaders Balance Candor and Care
By Rich Hagberg December 16, 2025
(Part 2 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Integrity as an Innovation Strategy: Why Moral Clarity Drives Creativity, Not Just Compliance
By Rich Hagberg December 9, 2025
(Part 1 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Greatness Lies in the Contradictions: How the Best Leaders Integrate Opposites Instead of Choosing S
By Rich Hagberg December 2, 2025
The Leadership Tightrope If you lead long enough, you start to realize something uncomfortable: everything that makes you effective also threatens to undo you. Your drive becomes impatience. Your confidence becomes stubbornness. Your empathy turns into guilt. The longer you lead, the more you realize that the job isn’t about choosing one trait over another — it’s about learning to carry both. That’s what maturity looks like in leadership. It’s not balance. It’s tension well managed. The False Comfort of Either/Or Most leaders crave clarity. We want rules. Playbooks. Certainty. Should I be tough or kind? Decisive or collaborative? Visionary or practical? The insecure part of the brain hates contradiction. It wants the “right answer.” But leadership lives in the messy middle — the place where both truths exist, and neither feels comfortable. The best leaders aren’t either/or thinkers. They’re both/and navigators. A Story from the Field I once coached a CEO who told me, “I’m torn between holding people accountable and being empathetic.” I said, “Why do you think those are opposites?” He paused, then laughed. “Because it’s easier that way.” Exactly. It’s easier to pick a lane than to learn how to drive in two at once. He eventually realized the real question wasn’t which side to choose, but when and how to lean into each. He became known as “the fairest tough boss in the building.” That’s the magic of integration — toughness with tenderness, vision with realism, clarity with compassion. Why Paradox Feels So Hard Contradictions feel like hypocrisy when you haven’t made peace with your own complexity. If you believe you have to be one consistent version of yourself — confident, decisive, inspiring — then every moment of doubt feels like fraud. But the truth is, great leaders are contradictory because humans are contradictory. You can be grounded and ambitious, humble and proud, certain and still learning. The work is not to eliminate the tension — it’s to get comfortable feeling it. The Psychology Behind It Our brains love binaries because they make the world simple. But complexity — holding opposites — is the mark of advanced thinking. Psychologists call this integrative complexity — the ability to see multiple perspectives and blend them into a coherent approach. It’s not compromise; it’s synthesis. It’s saying, “Both are true, and I can move between them without losing my integrity.” That’s where wisdom lives — in the movement, not the answer. Funny But True A client once told me, “I feel like half monk, half gladiator.” I said, “Congratulations. That means you’re leading.” Because that’s what the job demands: peace and fight, compassion and steel. If you can’t hold both, you end up overusing one until it breaks you. The Cost of One-Dimensional Leadership We’ve all worked for the “results-only” leader — brilliant, efficient, and emotionally tone-deaf. And the “people-first” leader — kind, loyal, and allergic to accountability. Both are exhausting. Both create lopsided cultures. When leaders pick a single identity — visionary, disciplinarian, nurturer, driver — they lose range. They become caricatures of their strengths. True greatness comes from emotional range, not purity. The Paradox Mindset Here’s how integrative leaders think differently: They value principles over preferences. They can be decisive without being defensive. They know empathy isn’t weakness and toughness isn’t cruelty. They trade perfection for adaptability. They’re the ones who can zoom in and out — from the numbers to the people, from the details to the meaning — without losing coherence. They’re not consistent in behavior. They’re consistent in values. That’s the difference. How to Practice Both/And Thinking Spot your overused strength. The strength that’s hurting you most is the one you lean on too much. If you’re decisive, try listening longer. If you’re compassionate, try being direct faster. Ask, “What’s the opposite quality trying to teach me?” Impatience teaches urgency; patience teaches perspective. You need both. Invite your opposite. Bring someone onto your team who balances your extremes — not a mirror, a counterweight. Hold paradox out loud. Tell your team, “This decision has tension in it — and that’s okay.” Modeling that normalizes complexity for everyone else. A Moment of Self-Honesty I’ve spent decades watching leaders chase “clarity” like it’s peace. But peace doesn’t come from eliminating tension. It comes from trusting yourself inside it. Once you accept that leadership will always feel contradictory, you stop fighting it — and start flowing with it. You don’t need to be the calmest, toughest, or most visionary person in the room. You just need to be the one who can stay whole while the world pulls you in opposite directions. Your Challenge This Week When you catch yourself thinking, “Should I be X or Y?” — stop. Ask instead, “How can I be both?” Then practice it in one small moment. Be kind and firm. Bold and humble. Fast and thoughtful. That’s where growth hides — in the discomfort between two truths. Final Word The best leaders aren’t balanced. They’re integrated. They’ve stopped trying to erase their contradictions and started using them as fuel. They’ve learned that leadership isn’t about certainty. It’s about capacity — the capacity to hold complexity without losing your center. That’s not chaos. That’s mastery.
ALL ARTICLES