In this insightful episode, Andrew Poles, Founder and CEO of Andrew Poles Founder Growth Coaching, shares how to resolve co-founder tensions and evolve into a high-impact CEO without burnout. If you struggle with misaligned decisions and strained leadership partnerships, you won’t want to miss it.
You will discover:
– What neuroscience reveals about avoiding burnout in scaling
– How to prioritize alignment over agreement to move forward faster
– Why fostering deep connections boosts team performance exponentially
Episode Transcript
Scott Ritzheimer
Hello, hello and welcome. Welcome once again to the Start scale and succeed podcast. It’s the only podcast that grows with you through all seven stages of your journey. As a founder, I’m your host, Scott Ritzheimer, and I want to talk to founders out there who are feeling a tension, or many tensions, with their co founder or second in command, because you might be in this place where conversations that used to be so easy feel like they’re carrying the weight of the world on them, or you find yourself clashing over decisions that shouldn’t be this hard, or you’re starting to wonder if you’re really even on the same team anymore. If you find yourself feeling that way, don’t worry. You’re not alone. It’s something that we, almost every founder goes through the only ones who don’t are the ones who don’t have a co founder or second in command to be there with them. So it’s normal, it’s part of the process. Is part of the game, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. And so to help you overcome that conflict, to find the secret to really getting through it, I’ve invited Andrew Poles to come and join us today. Andrew is amazing. He’s a highly sought after executive coach and thought leader who helps visionary founders grow high impact businesses without burning out. With over 20 years of experience, he’s coached over 10,000 leaders from companies like NASA Dell, Schwab, Netflix and Epic Games. He’s a former senior leader who turned multi million dollar business turned around multi million dollar businesses now he’s launched his coaching practice in 2020 and is hitting six figures in six weeks and doubling year over year. He blends neuroscience, leadership, psychology and storytelling to help first time founders evolve from individual contributors to high impact CEOs, and he’s here with us today. Andrew, so glad to have you here. I got so excited when I was researching for the episode and came across some of your writing on this issue. And I want to start with just jump right in. And so one of the things that I’ve heard you write about, or seen you write about, is that oftentimes when leaders are out of sync. It’s not so much because they disagree, but it’s because they fail to align. Now, that’s really interesting language. What’s the difference? And why does that distinction matter so much for a founder at this level?
Andrew Poles
So yeah, so the first the difference, the difference between agreeing and aligning, is this, when you agree, it means that you both see the issue you’re dealing with in the same way. So you have the same, you know, idea of what the outcome should be, of the same idea, what the strategy should be, the same idea, but we should hire, not hire this person. So you see the situation exactly the same way. That’s agreement, and you when you reach when you have agreement, that’s the easiest path forward. But you don’t always reach agreement, and when you don’t reach agreement, you can do that without breaking alignment. So alignment is more about not necessarily that you see the the issue of the day or the issue of the conversation the same way, but that you will you have committed to each other, that when you disagree, there’s a way you’re going to choose to move forward that works for both of you, like like you agree in advance, that when you’re going to disagree, that you’re going to handle disagreement this way so you don’t break your partnership. And that’s the most important thing, and this is where many co founders go off, is that when they have disagreements, which is predictable and even important, that you have disagreements where you don’t see things the same way, that you don’t break your partnership in running the business together. Yeah, so alignment is a way, and we can talk about how to reach alignment, or what alignment looks like when you disagree, but it’s important that you have a way to reach alignment when you disagree, so that you’re moving forward as partners, because that is the best way to perform in running your business is when that connection is solid. The trust is still there, and the agreements you set with each other about how you’re going to run the business together, even when you disagree, are being honored. Then trust is high and you can make great decisions even when one person disagrees with the way you’re going to move forward.
Scott Ritzheimer
I love that, and I love this idea of agreeing in advance and setting out the ground rules. Now those ground rules have the potential to be pretty different depending on the circumstance. So if we’ve kind of got these two buckets of folks that we’re talking to today, one is co founders, and I’m assuming, in for the sake of this conversation, that they’re co equal, right? I wouldn’t recommend it, but let’s call it a 5050, split, just to address that level of complexity. And then, and then the second group is kind of anything but that. So maybe like a 9010 split for co founders, or a first in command, second in command, employee type relationship where they’re not balanced out. So let’s talk about this kind of CO equal, co founder approach. What are some ways that you’ve seen them agree in advance on what to do when they disagree?
Andrew Poles
Well, so a couple of things may be that you have different domain expertise. Let’s just say. Right? So this is very common when you have a CEO who’s more of a visionary and an operator, and then you have a CTO who’s very technical. So there might be issues around engineering, where the CTO they’re going to agree in advance, the CTO is going to make unilateral decisions where there’s disagreement. And likewise, when it goes comes to go to market, maybe the CEO is going to make unilateral decisions when they disagree, because they defer to each other’s expertise. And then there may be places where, in the middle, they both have an important point of view, like maybe product, for example, one of those places where they both have a very important point of view, the CEO having a read on the market, CTO, having a sense of what we can technologically get done, or what’s going to be serviceable as a product. So in the situations where there’s going to be no deferring happening, you need to come up with agreements about first, how do you work through disagreement? So like procedural agreements, when we disagree, how are we going to handle that? And one of the agreements that I recommend people make, and this is something that’s pretty standard for negotiations or mediations in general, but it’s good to agree in advance, is that you’re going to agree to not be attached to the means of reaching the end that you want, and you’re going to start the conversation off trying to figure out, what is it that’s important to each of us as an end. So you may have one situation where, let’s say one co founder wants to move fast because they’re concerned about iteration, market opportunity, product, market fit, et cetera, and the other one wants to move more slowly because they want to make sure there’s not too much technical debt being built into that they can’t service later on. What? Something like that? I’m just making up a scenario so you agree in advance. Okay, when we have these disagreements, we’re going to get down to the brass tacks of what is your big concern and what is it that you need, in whatever way we move forward, for you to feel like you’ve fulfilled your obligations as a co founder, and what is it that I need? And you’re going to reach those ends, so maybe the CEO who wants to move fast says, you know, I need to make sure that we don’t run out of cash runway, because we’ve taken too long to iterate each version of the product, and now we don’t have product market fit, and we can’t raise more capital, and we’re dead. That’s my concern. Okay, good. What’s your concern? My concern is, if we move too fast, the technical debt will lead to the same result, which is, we’ll build something that finds product market fit, but when we go to scale, we won’t be able to work out all this technical debt in time before we run out of money, and then competitors will pass us and we’ll fail. Great, so we both agree we don’t want to fail. You’re concerned about too much technical debt, I’m concerned about too much time. Do you see my concern as valid? Yes, I do. Do you see my concern as valid? Yes, I do. Great. So what’s the pathway forward that allows me to get my concern? Matt, you to get your concern? Matt, that we can both agree on. So now what you’re really talking about is a strategic question. It’s a tactical question. But it isn’t a question of, well, what I’m worried about is important for the company, and you just have a preference. You both get, okay, we’re both concerned about the long term success of the company. That makes it easier to work things through. Okay? So that’s like the second stage. So you have these procedural agreements, how will we, how will we do this? And to kind of say what I just said in general terms, I think you could think about that as we’re going to make an agreement, that when we disagree, we’re going to both work to come around to the same side of the table and look out at the situation together, shoulder to shoulder, until we’re both seeing the same thing, right? So I can see it through your eyes, you can see it through my eyes, so we can both see the validity of one another’s concern. So we’re looking at it together, and together, we’re trying to tackle the problem of disagreement. Why that’s important is because, as human beings, being highly emotional, and sometimes when the fear is high, because we’re afraid of failure. We’re afraid of running out of money. We tend to personalize things, and so then it becomes me against you, and what we want is you and me against the challenge, never me against you or you against me. So that’s the second agreement I recommend my co founders make, is that it’s never going to be me against you? Yeah, it’s always gonna be you and me against the challenge. So good. Then from there, you may have to have agreements about, you know, when, when do we defer, like I said. So there may be cases in advance, but there may be procedural things about, like, when do we defer to one another?
Scott Ritzheimer
Yeah. So there’s so much that we could unpack in there, but I want to hit the second part of this, which is when there’s an obvious power differential between the two, okay, and how you navigate that. So again, we’ll take like an 8020 split, or a founder, first employee. Kind of split, number one, number two. Do those rules differ? Sure, in an environment like that, or how do you deal with the the power balance differential that’s there, and then an example like that?
Andrew Poles
Well, you know, as you know, there can be differences in ownership that don’t cash out in terms of differences in decision making power. You might have an 820, split in ownership where you both have a board seat, for examples. So I’m going to take the case where there is an imbalance of decision making power, because I think that’s the more interesting case. So in that case, you have to, again, set this up in advance. The person who has less ownership stake and less decision making authority, they have to reconcile themselves before they enter into the agreement. If I always get overruled because I’ve agreed to this differential in power or decision making authority, can I live with that? Yeah. Can I be okay with that? Do I have enough trust of my co founder that if I always get overruled, I can still align with what they’re going to do or do? I think that could be a problem, and if it is a problem, where specifically do I think that might become a problem? Because if you can get it specific, like, I would definitely have a problem if we start crossing lines and legal, right? I’m not going to be okay with that. Or I’m definitely going to have a problem. If we ever get into this financial position or whatever, then you can negotiate that in advance and say, Okay, if we’re going to do this on these two or three things, I want us to write into the bylaws that that it’s a 5050, split on decision making authority, or it has to go to the board or whatever if we can’t agree, and then the person who’s going to be in the position of having less power, they have to work out whatever they need To be able to give away all that decision making authority to their co founder, without any resentment, right or regret. So it takes some real thinking in advance, after you’ve got that set up. Very much the same sort of rules apply.
Scott Ritzheimer
Yeah. I love this, because, again, the through line here on all of this is, you do this in advance, right? There are things that you can do to head off a whole lot of this issue. I think the other side of this, and I’d love for you to speak to this, is, yes, that number two position does have to have that humility walking in. Talk to us a little bit about what the number one positions humility looks like walking in because they’re giving up something too by inviting someone else into this circle.
Andrew Poles
Yeah, well, I mean, that person probably has a good answer to the question, why do I want a co founder? Hopefully, if they don’t, they should start there, right? You want to have a powerful answer to that question, and then your answer to that question needs to inform you about how you want to work this out. And as a again, a general principle I want to offer up to the conversation Scott that isn’t dependent on which scenario we’re in. And also this works for managing people who are leaders in the company, who don’t have don’t have decision making authority. This works in marriages or partnerships. Is what really works, is to stay committed to win, win outcomes, and to be committed to that at the level of intention, not just at the level of agreements that we make in advance, and here’s why that works. The two things that grease the gears of working relationships and performance through partnerships or collaboration are trust and connection. When either one of those two things get strained or broken, what you will find is that performance will go down almost immediately, how long it takes you to make decisions, how much conversation needs to get had, how much resistance you experience from the other person when you’re trying to do the next thing. So when either trust or connection gets strained or broken, or if both do, you will notice an immediate decline in the performance of your business and your relationship. So if you take on a commitment for Win, win outcomes, what that does is it maintains trust and connection at a high level, because then the person with more authority has to ask themselves, okay, well, for my co founder with 20% equity and 20% vote to be happy, to feel like they’re winning, to feel like they are doing what they came to do. What do they need for you to ask yourself that question and ask them that question, and have that be above board. Well then that person experience is like, Okay, I am important to this person, and we’re going to make agreements, and I understand if I’m going to give up power to this person, they actually care that they’re not pulling one over on me. Now this is not the way business is ordinarily done. Most people are at least in the back of their mind thinking, well, in a worst case scenario, how can I win? Not like because they want the other person to lose, but they just want to make sure they don’t lose. Mm, hmm. But if you take that option off the table, like, how do we always have it be the case, or maximally be the case, that we’re both going to win, then the humility of the person with more authority is right there in that commitment, yes, of even asking the question.
Scott Ritzheimer
And it’s it works so well. You know, it’s one of those things, like having a number one, number two relationship, co founder relationship, I think, is, is the only thing that’s harder than that is a marriage, right? Like, it’s a really tough but the only thing that’s more rewarding is a marriage as well. Like, when it works well, when you maintain that trust and connection at a high level, when you think win, win, like you’re talking about here, there’s so much more that you can do as to it’s way more than twice what you could do yourself. And it’s so important that we invest in and it’s so worth our investment in getting it right. Andrew, I’ve got this question that I ask them, I guess I’m interested to see what you’d have to say, but especially in the context of all we’ve talked about here today, and for founders listening out there, what would you say is the biggest secret that you wish wasn’t a secret at all. What’s that one thing you wish every founder watching or listening today knew?
Andrew Poles
I think that for founders and co founders, the biggest secret that I wish weren’t a secret today is this. I want to come back to this thing about connection, and I want to give a brief analogy about this. And for people want to look this up, this is a fascinating study that was done in the domain of trees by a woman named Suzanne smart. I think it was 1997 but they had these groves of trees where there were Douglas firs and birch trees growing together in the same field, and they wanted to pull out, if I hope I get this right, I think they wanted to pull out the birch trees because they were like an undergrowth tree, so that the Douglas fir trees could grow bigger and have more resources and whatever. And what they found was, when they pulled out all the birch trees, the Douglas fir trees got sick because they were connected underneath the soil through a fungal network, and they were sharing resources. They were actually, quote, unquote, talking to each other through this network, and they were helping each other thrive together. So when you pulled one out, the other one got sick. Human beings also evolved that way. We never evolved as solo creatures. We always evolved in communities of people who all had to win together for everyone to survive. So the big secret I wish founders knew is that the is that the most power you’re going to get is in figuring out in your own style, in your own way, because it’s different for everyone. How do I have a really healthy connection with everyone I work with? Because that connection is what greases the gears of performance. When it’s strong, everything is easier. And I don’t know very many founders who are thinking about the quality of their connection with everyone they’re working with, they’re thinking more strategically, tactically or in terms of outcomes.
Scott Ritzheimer
So good. Andrew, so good what? What we can learn from trees. It’s really it’s really remarkable. Andrew, there’s some folks listening, and they just love to learn more. They’d love to hear more about how you help founders and their leaders to grow and scale. Where can folks find more out about you and the work you do?
Andrew Poles
Two Best Places would be connect with me on LinkedIn. If you reach out to me, I’ll accept your connection request. So that’s linkedin.com/in/andrewpoles And I publish a lot on LinkedIn. You can also follow me there and then. My website is andrewpoles.com and there’s a Contact Me page on there. There’s a lot of blog posts on there on some of the ideas we talked about today. So that’s another great resource.
Scott Ritzheimer
Fantastic, Andrew, it was a privilege and honor having you here today. Thank you so much for sharing with us, really, really powerful from top to bottom. I really appreciate it. And for those of you watching and listening. You know your time and attention mean the world to us. I hope you got as much out of this conversation as I know I did, and I cannot wait to see you next time. Take care.
Contact Guest Name
Andrew Poles is a sought-after executive coach and thought leader who helps visionary founders grow high-impact businesses—without burning out. With over 20 years of experience, he’s coached 10,000+ leaders from companies like NASA, Dell, Schwab, Netflix, and Epic Games. A former senior leader who turned around multi-million-dollar businesses, Andrew launched his coaching practice in 2020—hitting six figures in six weeks and doubling year over year. He blends neuroscience, leadership psychology, and storytelling to help first-time founders evolve from individual contributors to high-impact CEOs.
Want to learn more about Andrew Poles’ work at Andrew Poles Founder Growth Coaching? Check out his website at https://andrewpoles.com/
Connect with Andrew through LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewpoles/