“We’re equals,” one founder told me. “We split everything 50/50. Power isn’t an issue.”
But within two sessions, it was clear: Power was the issue. It just hadn’t been named.
In my work as a psychologist coaching founding teams, I’ve seen this play out again and again. Founders come in thinking they have a communication problem, a performance issue, or a strategic disagreement. What they actually have is a hidden power imbalance that’s quietly shaping how decisions get made, how trust breaks down, and how their company either scales or self-destructs.
Power Is Always in the Room, Even if You Don’t Talk About It
We often think of power in narrow terms: who’s CEO, who owns the most equity, who has the final say. But real-world power is messier and more layered than that. It shows up emotionally, psychologically, and relationally.
Some sociologists talk about positional power—authority that comes from title, equity, or access. Psychologists speak of emotional power, which shows up in how we control conversations, respond to conflict, or withdraw when things get tough. There’s also relational power—who others defer to, who feels safe enough to push back. And cultural power—whose personality and style fits the founding story and gets rewarded.
When power goes unnamed, it doesn’t go away; it gets acted out in subtler (and often more damaging) ways.
Case Study: The Founding Investor and the Silent Operator
George was a serial entrepreneur with a nine-figure exit. He’d personally invested $500,000 into a new SaaS venture and invited Bob, a subject-matter expert with no startup experience, to cofound it.
George held the equity, the connections, and the CEO title. Bob held the product vision and deep knowledge of the space. Their partnership should have worked. Instead, they ended up in a loop of criticism and withdrawal.
George criticized. Bob shut down. George felt alone. Bob felt small.
Only once we unpacked their dynamic did things shift. George saw how his anxiety about losing money led him to micromanage. Bob realized his response to criticism prevented him from showing up with the same passion that made him an expert. Through direct conversations about risk, fear, and expectations, their relationship recalibrated.
George decreased his criticism and shifted to empowering Bob to the best of his ability. Bob stepped into his role with newfound confidence, understanding that his perspective was needed for the company to succeed.
Case Study: The Romantic Ultimatum
In another startup, a trio of first-time founders—Mark, Jared, and Jessica—brought in complementary skills and a major VC backing. Jessica, the last to join and also Mark’s girlfriend, initially received less equity than the others. After negotiating equal ownership, tensions with Jared rose fast.
Eventually, Jessica gave Mark an ultimatum: “It’s Jared or me.”
This moment was coercive. Jessica used emotional intimacy to influence a business decision. Mark, caught between roles, avoided stepping into leadership, leading Jared to exit. The fallout damaged trust across the company.
Repairing this rupture required months of deliberate effort. Jessica committed to new norms for addressing conflict. Mark stepped into a more active leadership role.
Their story became a cautionary tale: When power goes unspoken—especially in overlapping romantic and professional roles—it often erupts in ways that harm everyone. But with structure, accountability, and a renewed commitment to transparency, even fractured partnerships can begin to heal.
Case Study: Co-CEOs, Equal Titles, Unequal Trust
Joe and Jim were best friends turned biotech founders. They split the CEO title to “avoid politics” and “share the load.” What they really avoided was talking about fear: fear of losing each other, of not being enough alone, of who’d be seen as more important.
Over time, their collaboration became codependent. Decisions stalled. Feedback was avoided. Eventually, they realized their shared title masked unequal power and unmet emotional needs.
With help, they restructured: Joe became CEO. Jim stepped into a specialist role. This reshuffling of roles and responsibilities improved internal communications and helped their partnership (and company) function more smoothly.
You Can’t Eliminate Power, but You Can Redefine It
What these stories share is a simple truth: Power always exists. You don’t get to choose whether it’s there. You only get to choose whether you deal with it directly or let it define your team indirectly.
As Esther Perel puts it, there’s a difference between “power over” and “power to.”
- Power over controls. It demands and stifles.
- Power to contributes. It invites and strengthens.
When founders avoid conversations about power, they often fall into patterns that resemble dysfunctional family dynamics: parental control, sibling rivalry, passive-aggressive silence.
These dynamics aren’t random. They’re rooted in unresolved emotions and reinforced by startup culture’s romanticization of “flat” leadership.
But flat org structures don’t flatten human emotions. They just bury them.
Want a Stronger Team? Talk About Power
If you’re a founder reading this, ask yourself:
- Who holds influence in your team and who doesn’t?
- What kinds of power do you each bring? (Think: expertise, relationships, vision, execution.)
- Are any of you using power to compensate for fear, uncertainty, or hurt?
Trust doesn’t mean giving up power. It means being honest about where it lives and working together to make sure it’s used wisely.
Because in the end, great startups don’t just manage capital. They manage relationships. And the most overlooked lever of team success is talking openly about power, before it speaks for you.