Conflict Resolution: Startup Leaders Share Their Approaches
Conflict resolution is a critical skill for startup leaders navigating the challenges of rapid growth and innovation. This article presents practical approaches shared by experienced entrepreneurs who have successfully managed disagreements within their organizations. From aligning vision through open dialogue to implementing phased approaches with clear metrics, these insights offer valuable strategies for turning potential conflicts into opportunities for progress.
- Align Vision Through Open Dialogue
- Develop Tech-Enabled Expert Model
- Balance Growth and Quality
- Clarify Vision Through Semantic Alignment
- Reframe Conflict as Timing Issue
- Involve Customers in Decision-Making Process
- Test Ideas with Mini Pilot Program
- Implement Phased Approach with Clear Metrics
- Resolve Conflict Through Practical Testing
Align Vision Through Open Dialogue
When we were getting Ridgeline Recovery off the ground, there was a real divide among the leadership team. Half wanted to scale quickly—open multiple locations, pump money into marketing, go aggressive. The other half, including myself, wanted to stay small at first and focus on building a rock-solid clinical program before expanding.
It wasn’t a personality clash—it was a values conflict. Growth vs. quality. Short-term volume vs. long-term trust. Both sides had valid points. But we couldn’t move forward until we got aligned.
So we shut the laptops, got in a room, and had the hard conversation. Not about projections. About priorities. Why are we even doing this? Who do we want to be known as five years from now? What happens if we grow fast and the clinical integrity cracks under pressure?
What settled it wasn’t consensus—it was clarity. We agreed that if we lost trust, we lost everything. Reputation in this space isn’t a branding problem—it’s a word-of-mouth reality. So we made the call to slow down. Build one great program, prove our outcomes, then grow.
Now, years later, I’m glad we took that path. The foundation we built early on still holds. The trust we earned early still fuels our referrals. And when we do expand, we’re doing it with confidence—not chaos.
My advice? Don’t avoid the fight. Get everyone in the room, drop the posturing, and get painfully clear on your “why.” Vision doesn’t need to be unanimous—but it better be aligned.
Andy Danec
Owner, Ridgeline Recovery LLC
Develop Tech-Enabled Expert Model
Early in Fulfill.com’s journey, we faced a pivotal crossroads regarding our business model. Half of our leadership team wanted to build a tech-first marketplace with minimal human interaction, believing scale required automation. The other half advocated for a high-touch approach with dedicated account managers guiding each client through the 3PL matching process.
Both sides had compelling arguments. The tech-first approach would scale efficiently, while the high-touch model would likely yield higher customer satisfaction and retention. As tensions rose during strategy sessions, I realized we needed to resolve this fundamental question before moving forward.
Rather than forcing a binary decision, I organized a structured two-week assessment. We split into cross-functional teams (mixing advocates from both sides) to interview current customers, analyze industry data, and build basic prototypes representing each approach. Then we brought everything to a full-day workshop where each team presented findings.
What emerged wasn’t an either/or solution, but something more nuanced. Our customers consistently told us they wanted technology to simplify comparison and contracting, but also needed expert guidance for complex decisions. The 3PL selection process has too many variables to fully automate, but too much information to navigate without technology.
We ultimately developed what we call our “tech-enabled expert” model – using our matching algorithm to identify top 3PL candidates, but providing personalized guidance from our logistics specialists who understand the nuances of different fulfillment operations.
This approach forced us to think beyond our initial positions and create something better than either original vision. Years later, this collaborative resolution process remains embedded in our culture. We regularly use cross-functional assessment teams when facing strategic decisions, which has minimized siloed thinking and helped us build a platform that truly serves our clients’ complex needs in the 3PL space.
Joe Spisak
CEO, Fulfill.com
Balance Growth and Quality
Back when I was building up Achilles Roofing, we hit a wall. Two of my lead guys—one from the sales side and one from the field—had completely different ideas on how we should scale. The sales guy wanted to push more online leads, even if it meant faster turnaround and tighter job timelines. The field guy pushed back hard—he said quality would suffer, and our crew wasn’t built to chase volume.
Both had a point. Sales wanted to grow, field wanted to protect the brand. But the tension was building, and I could see it starting to affect morale and even job performance.
So here’s what I did: I pulled both of them into the office after hours—no crew, no distractions, no titles. Just straight talk. I told them both to lay it all out, no filters. I didn’t jump in. I let them speak. Then I laid down one ground rule: “Whatever direction we take, the customer experience can’t suffer. If quality drops, we all lose.”
We came out of that talk with a real plan. We agreed to scale up—but in phases. We added one new crew, not three. We kept job limits weekly, not monthly. And we installed a quality control step after every install—something the field guy suggested that the sales side actually liked once he saw it kept reviews strong.
That situation taught me something solid: you don’t fix vision conflicts by choosing sides—you anchor both sides to the mission. For us, that mission is quality work and a reputation you can stand on.
And when your people know you’re listening—not just leading—they’ll meet you halfway.
Ahmad Faiz
Owner, Achilles Roofing and Exteriors
Clarify Vision Through Semantic Alignment
As a recruiter working in the tech sector, I assist startups in developing growth plans almost daily — and let me emphasize, internal conflict at the outset is entirely expected. It’s not uncommon for me to meet with a leadership team and discover they’ve never actually had a direct conversation about their shared vision for the company.
My initial approach is always the same: I begin with semantics.
In many instances, the core issue isn’t disagreement; it’s miscommunication. People often use identical words to convey very different meanings. This is a well-documented phenomenon. One founder might express a desire to build an “innovative” brand, while another discusses building a “legacy” company. At first glance, these goals may appear conflicting. However, in practice, they might be describing the same vision from different perspectives.
That’s why I employ what I call an “either/or” questionnaire. I take their vague or emotionally charged language and reframe it in more concrete, neutral terms — using my own words, not theirs. By doing this, I level the playing field and compel alignment on the language. Suddenly, when asked whether they prioritize long-term infrastructure over rapid iteration, or whether they’d prefer steady profitability over aggressive growth, the answers begin to align.
What typically emerges is not a compromise, but clarity. More often than not, the founders have been expressing the same ideas all along; they simply hadn’t realized it.
Once we overcome that semantic hurdle, growth planning becomes significantly easier. Everyone is pulling in the same direction, and that’s when execution can truly begin.
Rob Reeves
CEO and President, Redfish Technology
Reframe Conflict as Timing Issue
We experienced a polarizing disagreement between two core team members at MexicoHelicopter.com. One wanted us to become a “volume-based platform” with public pricing and bookings, while the other wanted to remain fully bespoke and private, maintaining all aspects in the premium position. No one on the team was wrong, but the contention was paralyzing.
Instead of taking either position, I called for a two-day offsite at the hangar. We sat inside a parked Bell 206, free from distractions, and diagrammed the two positions on a whiteboard. During this process, I realized we were not arguing about strategy, but rather about timing. One position focused on long-term scalability, while the other emphasized short-term trust and brand equity. I reframed the decision as sequential rather than a pure choice. We decided to remain invitation-only, with me quietly working on the PBN content system in the background to craft demand for when the time was appropriate.
We are now benefiting from that decision. We have only 304 followers on @mexicohelicoptertours, but we are the most trusted private helicopter experience in Mexico City. Our bookings are coming from the right partners – not from ads and seat-fillers. Both teammates are still with me, continuing to build the business.
Martin Weidemann
Owner, MexicoHelicopter.com
Involve Customers in Decision-Making Process
I encountered a roadblock last year when half of my team advocated for investing resources in a native mobile app, while the other half (including myself) insisted that we perfect our web dashboard first. Every roadmap meeting devolved into a tug-of-war over priorities, and we stalled on every feature launch.
To break the stalemate, I organized a one-day “Customer Co-Design Workshop” with five of our most active beta users. We drew workflows on whiteboards, then handed out mobile and web prototypes for testing. Observing them rely heavily on the dashboard’s data visualizations convinced everyone that refining the web experience would deliver the most significant impact initially. Bringing real users into the room transformed opinions into insights and realigned the team around a single, data-driven vision.
Anthony Sorrentino
Owner, Pest Pros of Michigan
Test Ideas with Mini Pilot Program
Early on, our leadership team split over whether to double down on rapid geographic expansion or deepen our service offering in Atlanta before branching out. Our CTO was eager to build a scalable platform for nationwide rollouts, while our operations lead argued that we’d burn cash and compromise quality if we stretched ourselves too quickly. After a tense meeting where both sides presented data and projections, I realized neither would budge simply by rehashing the numbers.
To break the logjam, I proposed a two-month “mini pilot” in a nearby market using our existing service model but with a lean tech overlay. We defined clear success metrics (customer satisfaction, cost per inspection, follow-on booking rate) and split the team: engineers ran the booking and reporting side, while ops managed field delivery. At the end of eight weeks, our pilot hit 95% of quality targets at 20% lower operational cost.
Jay Vincent
Owner, Smart Solutions Pest Control
Implement Phased Approach with Clear Metrics
In a previous startup I worked in, two co-founders disagreed on product direction—one wanted to focus on enterprise clients, the other on a self-serve SMB model. Both visions had merit but required very different approaches in terms of development, marketing, and support.
How it was resolved:
1. We facilitated a strategy session with both founders and key team leads to map out the pros and cons of each approach, using customer data, financial projections, and competitive research.
2. Identified a phased solution: We agreed to launch with an SMB-friendly self-serve product that could be used to validate traction and revenue, while building in the flexibility to scale up to enterprise features later.
3. Set clear milestones: We tied future decisions (like an enterprise sales push) to measurable metrics—growth rate, user feedback, churn, etc.—so the vision could evolve based on data, not opinion.
Marc Bromhall
Founder, Dentist Hub
Resolve Conflict Through Practical Testing
There were two team leads with highly different opinions on how the internal workflow could be improved. One wished for more automation in acquiring new clients and modules to save time and eliminate redundant tasks. The other leader preferred manual systems, arguing they offered increased control and prevented mistakes. This conflict was making meetings awkward and decisions were becoming sluggish across the board.
I did not impose a decision on either side. Instead, I asked them to examine the practical impact of their strategies. The impact on staff workload, speed of response to clients, and accuracy of files was taken into consideration. Following this review, we implemented each method in respective groups and tested it briefly. This not only accelerated the process but also did not introduce anything new, and the workers enjoyed the convenience of its operation. This resolved the debate and it was easy to bring everyone on board. This approach was effective as it gave equal opportunity to all parties, allowed numbers to decide the process, and shifted the discussion towards making the situation more acceptable rather than debating whose idea was right or wrong.
Ron Harper
Licensed Paralegal/Owner, OTD Ticket Defenders Legal Services
