
Co-founder Conflict - garry
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/18/co-founder-conflict/
======
DelaneyM
We hear about co-founder dynamics a lot in the startup community, and I wonder
if the traditional business/technical dyad exacerbates conflict?

I am a technical co-founder, and that means I build things. In a conventional
co-founding relationship, I am be expected to give my business-oriented
partner the final word with respect to strategy or direction, and he defer to
me on how to build the product.

At the outset, this puts all the power in technology. Nothing is more
important than getting the right product built and shipping on schedule,
execution is everything.

Unfortunately, at any significant scale it's all strategy. Technology
increasingly becomes a cost centre; either it works or it doesn't, either it
ships or it sinks. Strategic decisions begin to lead technology choices, and
the CTO drifts away from the locus of power. Even if she's explicitly invited
to participate in strategy, the buck stops somewhere she is not.

Influence, and with it ownership and personal investment, whipsaws from one
founder to the other with neither realizing it explicitly. Ultimately,
technical founders almost always drift away (as we've seen most recently at
Buffer) when the company hits scale and they're fully vested. And that sucks -
any new blood won't be as naturally invested in the product without further
dilution, will lack history with the team, won't know where the skeletons are
buried, etc.

I hypothesize that balanced founding teams - two business, two technical,
sales & business, etc. would have more staying power in the long run. Cases
where there is no default division of labour and influence. I _believe_ I've
seen this pattern, but without a neutral data set I can't trust my biases.
YCombinator has enough data now to figure it out... (\ _nudge nudge\_ )

~~~
mattmanser
Unless I'm reading the blog post wrong[1], you've got it totally wrong about
Buffer, Joel made Buffer 1.0 and was the technically minded co-founder at
Buffer, not Leo. Sunil might have been an early hire, but we're talking a year
after company founding. Joel + Leo took a while to grow it.

I remember watching a talk by Joel before he'd even brought Leo on board in
Nottingham, UK (Joel was starting up in Birmingham, UK if I remember
correctly), about his previous products/failures and how he'd just built
Buffer and the problems it solved. I think I saw a post about Leo joining 3 to
6 months later, at the time a recent uni grad compared to Joel's more
experienced dev + freelance dev background.

I've always been pleased to see Joel succeed, as he's a great guy, but I have
to admit some of the posts they came out with have ultimately proved to be
utter b%!!$hit. I remember calling them out on a post about how the UK was a
bad place to startup, I've seen a couple of $100+ million buyouts of startups
here since then just in Nottingham. Then they claimed bootstrapping was best,
then raised. Claimed a flat structure was best, then go a traditional
management structure, etc., etc.

I sometimes felt they were just echoing back to the startup community what the
community wanted to hear, and to be fair, it really worked, they got lots of
upvotes on HN, etc., so great marketing out of it, and good traction. There
was a time when like clockwork they'd have a high-rated post here every Sunday
(or Monday, can't remember).

[1][https://open.buffer.com/change-at-buffer/](https://open.buffer.com/change-
at-buffer/)

~~~
borplk
Maybe it's just me but posts like that you linked fill me with a toxic
feeling. I don't know how to describe it. It just smells so fake and
diplomatic. Plastered with photos of smiling people in different countries and
happy-go-lucky company culture bullshit. I don't know how I could move my body
out of the bed if I were to work in environments like that. A "company
retreat" is a nightmare in my eyes.

Sigh. I'm a pessimistic loner of an introvert and I don't need your bullshit
in my life. I wish there was some more room for us on this planet. Every
corner you look it's either filled with extroverts or fake extrovert wanna-be
rockstar-templayers.

</vent>

~~~
cyberferret
I consider myself an introvert as well, and quite frankly don't even think
about things like company retreats etc. in my business. When we had lots of
employees, even things like company Christmas parties or after work drinks
would fill me with dread and I would just turn up out of duty. I would never
organise them or enforce them, but simply go along when someone else did.

However, I've learned in all these years that for some people, this is
actually what makes them tick. They thrive on such 'company culture' and the
chance to let loose a little outside of the workplace. Each to their own. The
sight of other people doing things they love _shouldn 't_ fill you with toxic
feelings. Make you slightly uncomfortable or disinterested perhaps, but
anything more than that, and there are probably deeper issues at play that
probably need to be resolved in yourself, rather than externally.

~~~
borplk
I should clarify the part that I meant feels me with a toxic feeling was not
seeing other people doing something they enjoy.

It's just that it seems like a carefully crafted image is being presented to
manipulate the reader and to push forward a corporate agenda hidden behind a
veil of optimistic language.

It's the corporate equivalent of a Facebook profile with holiday photos and
what not.

I've seen people get sick of their "company retreat" on day one but they don't
dare ever talk about it for fear of being labelled not a team player. They
just pretend they are having the time of their life. And they'll come back
write a blog post about their "WONDERFUL AMAZING JOURNEY" because that's
politically correct.

No one writes some Medium post about "How I fucking hated being stuck with
these people for 3 days and couldn't wait to come back home to take a break
from this nonsense.".

~~~
argonaut
It's one thing to say "parties aren't my thing," "I don't like talking to lots
of people," and so on.

It's another thing to talk about a "carefully crafted image is being presented
to manipulate the reader and to push forward a corporate agenda hidden behind
a veil of optimistic language," a "toxic feeling," a "nightmare in my eyes."

The first case is just what it's like to be introverted, and I empathize with
that. The latter is something else. That negativity and cynicism speaks to
issues deeper than just being introverted. For example, I had this problem a
few times before, and it usually had to do with feelings of jealousy over
being left out.

I am somewhat introverted. Here's what I do if I'm at a company
party/retreat/etc and I'm not having fun (usually because I don't see anyone I
know): I leave.

~~~
borplk
I think it has to do with me being an introvert and not being able to deeply
understand or view the world through an extrovert lens.

Having said that when I look around what I see is what appears to be mostly
actors. And I think I'm just tired and jaded toward it.

People hide their ulterior motives behind a happy phrases in a way that I
almost find offensive. I don't blame them, but I reserve the right to roll my
eyes.

It's like how people hide behind "Changing the world for the better!" because
"I want to get rich" doesn't sound as nice. Or how "Open friendly environment!
Collaboration!" is used to push open offices when more often than not deep
down the reasons are not quite the same as they say.

Sometimes I just want the wolrd and the people in it to be a little more real.

~~~
nl
_Having said that when I look around what I see is what appears to be mostly
actors. And I think I 'm just tired and jaded toward it.

People hide their ulterior motives behind a happy phrases in a way that I
almost find offensive. I don't blame them, but I reserve the right to roll my
eyes._

It's a bit unclear if you realize this or not, but to make it clear: there is
a (very) large group of people who _aren 't_ acting or "hiding ulterior
motives" when they act like this. They genuinely feel this way - indeed this
type of behavior is what energizes them.

It's completely ok to not be one of these people of course.

------
cyberferret
If I can throw in a bit of advice in this thread - here is something that
worked well in the two businesses I've founded with someone else in the past.
It doesn't matter the type of business, or the relative skill sets of each
founder, but it is something that I learned from "The E-Myth Revisited" by
Michael Gerber. (Highly recommended reading from anyone thinking of starting a
business.)

The tip is to draw up a company organisational chart, as if you were a 20 or
30 person company. Starting from the top, a box for CEO, then break down the
other managerial roles, such as Operations Manager, Finance Manager, Technical
Manager etc., then under those, further boxes for the sub-roles.

E.g. for 'Finance Manager', you might have Debtors Controller, Creditors
Controller, Payroll Manager etc. Under 'Technical Manager' you might have
'Lead Programmer', 'Graphic Designer', 'Database Administrator' etc. as you
see fit.

Then, it is a case of filling in the boxes with the name of the co-founder who
will be responsible for each of those areas. Sure you may get one name placed
more than others, but the idea is to work out the exact separation of duties
and who will be responsible for what.

It is also a great technique for working out each others weaknesses - for
instance I personally hate accounting related tasks, so I could never be the
finance manager, but I am content doing some rote work like invoicing or bank
reconciliations from time to time, so I would put my name lower in the order,
but be supervised by someone with more knowledge.

In the business startups where I have done that, things have worked out well
while we continually referred to it and used it as we grew. As we hired, we
removed our own names in the boxes and replaced them with the employee names.

The point is, that this whole concept helps with the communications angle that
we are talking about in this thread. Knowing what each person is responsible
for, and knowing who is accountable for what really helps with the reduction
in animosity between the founders.

But as with most things - constant vigilance is due. Things started to fall
apart when we deviated from these simple principles. Human nature I know, but
I hope the lessons learned here will help others.

~~~
logicallee
is there any chance you could share that original org chart (with just the 2
or 3 of you, but all the different roles and their relationships)? It's hard
for me to picture. Thank you.

------
cyberferret
This should be required reading for anyone thinking of starting a business, of
any sort. Personally, I have been through a couple of co-founder business
startups over the past 30 years, and can agree with everything that Garry has
pointed out in the article. Communication is key.

No doubting that a co-founder can make a big difference to the gargantuan task
of getting a business to build momentum. It is one of those times when 1 + 1 =
4. But it is vitally important that both (or more) co-founders keep the same
vision and goals at the forefront of their minds.

In both my previous cases of co-founded businesses I ended up with the case
where each of my co-founders had massive life changing things happen to them
personally (My first co-founder had his wife end up in a wheelchair for life).
I look back now and think that things could have been handled very differently
and perhaps the business could have made it through. I am not naive enough to
think I was completely blameless in those situations, but every time I look
back on the events, I can see that clear communication could have solved
things, as well as taking emotion out of the equation so things could have
been examined in a more rational manner. Really wish we had someone step in as
a moderator back then.

As an aside, I was an early adopter of Posterous, and loved the platform. I
was sad to see it go, and I wonder 'what if' Garry and his co-founder had
resolved their differences - would the company ever have continued for far
longer that it had?

------
jacquesm
Great to see this, thank you Garry for laying bare one of the most common
causes of start-up failure.

And make no mistake: almost every start-up will sooner or later face this in
one form or another. Simply because goals may be in alignment at the start of
a start-up but they _rarely_ if ever remain in alignment over the longer term.

I've counseled/mediated in quite a few companies facing these kind of issues
and it is always surprising in some way or another to everybody involved when
the root cause of the conflict is finally laid bare.

------
ericjang
Thanks for sharing this, Garry. In hindsight, would you have preferred to run
your startup as a solo founder, or do you believe that a solo founder startup
presents a greater operational/execution risk than co-founder conflict?

~~~
garry
The product we made caught lightning in a bottle because of the joint choices
Sachin and I made together. It is impossible to know if the product would have
come together without the talents of both of us. I would frankly guess not.

I think the outcome would have been better if I knew the things I wrote in
this blog post now, 10 years later!

------
alain94040
If you're interested in famous co-founder issues, I maintain a list here:
[http://thestartupconference.com/2016/05/13/famous-co-
founder...](http://thestartupconference.com/2016/05/13/famous-co-founder-
issues). Snap, uBeam, Cruise. Let me know if you know of more to add to the
list.

I could probably write a book about co-founder issues (I gave presentations on
that topic in the past, that's something :-).

The best co-founder is someone you worked with before. You know them. Starting
something with a co-founder you don't know? It goes downhill very fast.

There is a very fine balance that is hard to achieve. You want to have
complementary skills, but still be on the same page. You need to trust the
other co-founder and not micro-manage, and get the same trust in return. If
you have no shared history, it's extremely hard.

------
rsp1984
Great post and thanks for sharing. However I don't see the most important
point covered:

Before anything, set up a _written_ agreement with your co-founder(s)
containing

* Founder roles and responsibilities * Expected time commitments * Testable performance metrics or at least testable cases of non-performance

This may be part of the company operating agreement (containing the company
ownership structure) or a separate document that any co-founder has to sign.

Unfortunately I learned this the hard way and once ended up with a co-founder
that wasn't really committed to the company up to the point where we got
acquired (up to which point I've invested about 3x the time as compared to my
co-founder). Trust me, getting acquired in that situation did not feel good,
not at all.

------
leesalminen
One thing I'll share is that finding a co founder in a similar financial state
as yourself can be an important factor.

Money > Contracts

------
TuringNYC
From the article "One concrete thing before you start to work through conflict
is to always remind yourselves: You’re on the same team."

...yet, this is actually not obvious to many co-founders. I angel invest and
see this problem over and over -- situations where co-founders are not on the
same team but rather on either multiple teams or have misaligned incentives.

before any of what is discussed in the article, co-founders need to ensure --
in writing -- not only their roles/responsibilities but outside commitments,
especially paid outside commitments. Companies where one partner takes undue
risk (e.g., giving up a job while the other has not) are incredibly fragile,
yet this is often not discussed by many. In such situations, the co-founders
are not actually on the same team entirely.

EDIT: Another bad situation -- one where one founder has a much longer
tolerable horizon (perhaps they are rich, perhaps they have side incomes) and
another founder seeks a quick exit at a lower figure (perhaps because they
cant stay on a founder's salary for too long.)

------
zxcvvcxz
Haha joke's on you, I don't have a Co-Founder!

...I'll go back to being miserable and lonely now.

------
tedmiston
In college I was an RA. Somewhat surprisingly, this is really similar to the
communication advice we give to new roommates, most of which are first-time
roommates, and a good portion are even total strangers on move-in day. The
most common conflicts we had were around cleaning and who would take out the
trash with disparity between the norms of the roommates pre living together.

An interesting data point is that disputes over responsibility were roughly an
order of magnitude more common in triples or quads than doubles.

------
rock57
My friend and CEO of fido.ai Michal Wroczynski reposted this article with an
IMHO important clarification "Conflict is something to embrace. Narcistic
Assholes don't have conflict with you - they are just lying all the time. No
asshole rule is the most important advice for startups." Based on my personal
experience I couldn't agree more!

------
finid
_I had reached a point where I couldn’t agree with my co-founder over the
future of the company._

That's the real problem. When looking for a co-founder, I think it's very
important to choose one who shares the same vision about whatever you intend
to build. If a potential co-founder doesn't agree with the direction you wish
to go, keep looking.

~~~
garry
We started with very similar plans for the business, but as you get farther
along in the war, the fog of war engulfs you and in the middle of running the
startup can result in two very smart people with different views of the
battlefield.

------
rixrax
It's just like marriage: choose your partner carefully. In bad times, and in
good times, you should remember to be true to each other and honor each other.
And in the end, it still may not work out.

------
acremades
Cofounder issues is one of the main reasons why startups fail. Structuring
things the right way at the beginning is critical.

Below is a threat with great recommendations when there are cofounder issues.

[https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/how-do-you-deal-with-a-
cof...](https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/how-do-you-deal-with-a-cofounder-
that-leaves-the-company-with-a-good-amount-of-equity)

------
paulcole
Where can I learn more about the services of executive coach, Cameron
Yarbrough?

------
sagivo
My last startup failed simply because my co-founder and I couldn't stop
arguing. There's a fine line between compromising on an idea in order not to
clash with the other partner to over arguing and defending your idea. We
couldn't find this line and decided to stop. From talking with other friends
in startups seams like that's a main reason why most of them failed, yet no
one like to admit it or openly talk about it.

I wish there was a way to due-diligent co-founders like you can do with
business plan.

~~~
kartickv
When we were considering starting a startup, I explained my potential co-
founder my vision, what we should prioritise, and what we shouldn't do. He
took a few weeks and came back with his vision, and we realised that we have
diverging visions, so we didn't do the startup (among other reasons).

We remain friends, and he advises me on my business, and vice-versa.

------
contravariant
Some category theorists are now probably wondering what an n-flict is.

