The Most Undervalued Skill Cofounders Use To Reduce Conflict
Listening for Understanding is the foundation to optimal outcomes
Cofounder conflict is a preventable problem.
As a coach who has worked with founding teams over the last five years, I noticed the unfortunate truth that most founders overlook the importance of building a foundation of clear communication from day one leading to problems once growth- and board-related pressures increase.
Cofounder coaching is a boutique service arming founders with the skills and frameworks needed to increase teamwork and build a foundation of effective communication so they can navigate future disagreements with confidence.
Many of the techniques I use in my cofounder coaching program teaches founders how to approach difficult conversations, leading to improved mental and emotional wellbeing, more intentional cultural practices, and greater resilience in founding teams.
There is one skill—a basic, yet challenging practice—many founders overlook when trying to navigate conflicts.
The most undervalued (and most important) technique founders need to reduce conflict is Listening for Understanding.
Listening for Understanding has several components. To better explain this skill and create a foundation for understanding the root causes of cofounder conflict, I developed the Cofounder Levels Framework. Briefly:
Level I involves quick, rational decisions and conversations, and is the default way most founders communicate.
Level II is slower, more deliberate, and requires more mental resources, but results in more effective emotional conversations.
I have noticed many founding teams struggle to slow the pace of conversation and switch from Level I to Level II. I believe most founders fall into this trap because:
Level I is the default mode and is constantly reinforced — you must talk fast, think fast, and make fast decisions under pressure.
Level I is easier to discuss because it is based on factual information — most founders value facts over feelings.
Level II feels less productive because it’s draining resources you think should be spent elsewhere — many cofounders note leaning into a difficult conversation feels unproductive or exhausting, especially during high-stress moments.
Level II is uncomfortable to access when you’ve already built up frustration and resentment — many cofounders report fears of creating a bigger argument and prefer to avoid conflict.
However, there’s also immense value in switching to Level II conversations when discussing emotions, conflicts, and areas of disagreement, especially in high-stakes moments.
Level II helps you:
Understand the other person’s emotional context.
Reflect on your own thoughts, feelings, and reactions.
Access greater vulnerability and honesty.
Listen and speak more effectively.
Feel heard and respected.
After experimenting with slowing down—a practice I detailed here—and activating Level II, many founders discover the value of this practice. This is often a foundational piece required for deeper and more productive work to begin within the cofounder coaching engagement.
Said another way: Slowing down is the first step to more effective cofounder conflict navigation.
One way I encourage founders to activate Level II with more regularity is to practice Listening for Understanding.
Listening for Understanding involves a mental shift from hearing what the other person is saying with the intention of rebuttal to understanding from their perspective.
You might think of this as a process of joining, or being with, or seeing the world through their eyes. What I often tell cofounders is listen to seek (and name) consensus first.
Listening for Understanding Means Searching for Consensus
When you try to better understand the other person’s viewpoint—seeing the issue through their eyes, you may notice why they think the way they do. The more you can comprehend their reasoning, the better you can identify areas of agreement, commonality, or shared intention.
Unfortunately, most founding teams focus more on the areas of disagreement than the areas of agreement, leading to increased defensives and less productive listening practices.
For example, today I met with two SAAS founders, both with engineering backgrounds (and personalities). When I engaged them in an exercise to state consensus first, they found it difficult and illuminating: They often breeze right over what they agree on to focus on areas of misalignment — which makes sense when things are functioning well—but at this point in their tension-filled partnership overlooking agreement erodes what trust they still possess.
Do not allow your relationship to deteriorate in the first place!
Change things around by naming areas of agreement first, even if it is only shared intentions, such as wanting what is best for the company. This process of seeking consensus changes the context of the discussion from two opponents to you and your partner(s) being on the same team.
Teammates with shared goals better tolerate disagreement and listen more effectively.
For example…
Say you and your partner are arguing over whether to hire Candidate A for Head of Growth. You are for it, your partner is against it.
Option 1
You stay stuck debating the merits of the candidate—their references, previous experience, their powerpoint slides with far too much text, etc. You interrupt each other, magnify areas of disagreement, and escalate further. You then leave the conversation feeling unheard with the outcome undecided.
When you revisit the conversation tomorrow, one of you pulls a power move (“I’m the CEO,” or “I’m running growth right now and we need to move on this decision”) to settle the debate. And while this works in the short term, it leads to long-term resentment.
Option 2
You realize the disagreement is creating a circular conversation. You slow down and start Listening for Understanding.
You articulate what you are hearing your partner say and you validate their perspective—you see the situation from their vantage point and convey the areas of agreement.
Your partner feels understood and then returns the favor by listening to you. You discover the underlying area of disagreement: build strategy.
You wanted top of funnel fixed and the candidate has this experience; your partner wants conversions fixed and the candidate lacks this experience; your partner runs growth, has more subject matter expertise and you trust their perspective is also in the best interest of correcting the problem, so you give them the call based on these pieces of information.
You pass on this candidate and have a clearer understanding of what to look for in the next.
The difference
These two situations lead to far different outcomes.
Option 1
Leads to resentment, emotional residue, and each of you feeling unheard. Over time, this can lead to escalating disagreements due to the ineffective problem-solving strategy that led to a power move rather than a clear plan for moving forward.
Option 2
Does not contribute to resentment, creates a clearer decision-making process, and leads to better long-term personal and business outcomes.
Here’s how to Listen for Understanding:
When your partner is talking, eliminate all distractions.
Forget trying to explain your thoughts, feelings, or perspectives.
Drop all preconceived notions and assumptions about what they think or feel.
Focus entirely and completely on trying to hear what they are communicating.
Take note of the words they are using, their tone, and what they are trying to express.
Imagine the experience through their eyes.
Seek and name areas of consensus prior to discussing disagreements
If you read that and thought that’s a tough task, you’re absolutely right!
The skill of Listening for Understanding is demanding, in that it asks you to be fully present and concentrated on the other person with absolute focus.
It can be draining to put your own thoughts and feelings on the back-burner and focus exclusively on the other person’s experience, but that’s what’s necessary to enter deeply into Level II. And that’s exactly what’s required to start having more effective conversations so you can prevent cofounder conflict.