Power in Cofounding Relationships: How Hidden Dynamics Shape Your Startup’s Success
Unpacking the psychological and structural forces at play in founding teams—and what cofounder coaching reveals about how to navigate them
Trust is the foundation of every strong cofounding partnership. But behind the scenes of even the most visionary startup teams, something else is always present: power.
Power exists in every relationship—explicitly through titles and equity, and implicitly through emotional dynamics, expertise, charisma, and even past history. In my work as a psychologist coaching early-stage founders, I often see how unacknowledged power dynamics quietly erode trust, derail communication, and destabilize promising companies. These patterns rarely start with bad intentions. But when power remains unspoken, it becomes the invisible hand shaping your team’s culture, decisions, and future.
This post explores what cofounder coaching reveals about the role of power in founding teams. I’ll walk you through real (anonymized) examples from my work with venture-backed startups to show how seemingly minor tensions often trace back to deeper power imbalances—and how founders can transform those patterns into clarity, collaboration, and growth.
Theme 1: Power Isn’t Always Where You Think It Is
Power is often confused with position. Founders might assume the CEO or largest equity holder holds all the influence. But in practice, power is far more complex. It includes formal authority, yes—but also subject-matter expertise, personality dynamics, financial control, demographic privilege, and even relational leverage.
In the framework I share in The Cofounder Effect, power takes multiple forms:
Sociological Power: Shaped by demographics like gender, race, class, or prior success.
Psychological Power: Expressed through interpersonal behavior—such as emotional dominance, control, avoidance, or withdrawal.
Organizational Power: Defined through titles, decision rights, equity, and access to capital.
Cultural Power: Emerges when someone’s style fits the values of the organization (e.g., being seen as the “ideal founder”).
Let’s start with a case that looks, on the surface, like a matter of performance—but at its core, it’s a power story.
Case Study: The Investor–Operator Imbalance
George (a repeat founder with a prior nine-figure exit) invested $500k of his own money into a new edtech startup alongside Bob, a first-time founder with deep subject matter expertise but no previous startup experience. Though technically cofounders, George held more equity, more experience, and control over future fundraising—a triple threat of structural power.
By the time they reached coaching, George was deeply frustrated by what he saw as Bob’s lack of hustle and competence. Bob, meanwhile, felt dismissed and anxious but rarely shared his frustrations aloud. Their meetings were lopsided: George criticized, Bob withdrew, and the cycle continued.
But when we explored deeper, the dynamic came into focus:
George’s anxiety about losing his investment led him to micromanage and criticize.
Bob, sensing this pressure, began to shrink and self-silence, further reinforcing George’s frustration.
Both were stuck in what psychologists call a Pursue–Withdraw cycle, common in strained power dynamics: one pushes harder, the other shuts down.
We slowly unraveled the narrative.
“I’ve been treating Bob like a direct report, not a partner,” George admitted.
“I’m the only one who truly understands this industry,” Bob realized.
The turning point came when Bob began voicing boundaries and asking for feedback in a form that empowered rather than humiliated. George, in turn, began shifting from coercive power (“you’re not doing enough”) to power with—encouraging, supporting, and validating Bob’s authority in his domain.
This is a classic example of power being shaped not just by roles, but by emotional experience—and of founders unintentionally enacting old scripts until new tools become available.
Theme 2: When Power Gets Personal — Love, Loyalty, and Leverage in Triadic Teams
Power isn’t just about who holds the CEO title or who signed the first term sheet. It’s also about emotional leverage—who your cofounder listens to most, whose needs are prioritized, and which relationships set the tone for the rest of the team.
In triadic cofounder structures, relational power becomes even more nuanced. Hidden alliances can destabilize entire teams. And when romantic partnerships are part of the mix, the emotional intensity of power dynamics skyrockets.
Let’s look at one such example—where power wasn’t just expressed through business decisions, but through an ultimatum.
Case Study: The Cofounding Couple
Mark, Jared, and Jessica were three early-stage cofounders backed by a prestigious VC. Mark, the CEO, had started the company with Jared, his longtime friend and CTO. A few months later, Mark invited his girlfriend Jessica—a marketing leader with relevant expertise—to join as CMO and third cofounder.
Jessica was initially offered 10% less equity than the other two, despite her subject-matter relevance. She advocated for parity and eventually received it. But the initial discrepancy created a crack in the foundation—especially in her relationship with Jared, who already questioned her place on the team.
Tensions escalated quickly.
Jessica and Jared had clashing communication styles. Trust broke down. And in a moment of high conflict, Jessica told Mark:
“It’s him or me. Choose.”
This moment—textbook coercive power—forced Mark into an impossible decision: preserve his romantic partnership or his founding partnership.
He chose Jessica. Jared exited.
What followed was a long, difficult repair process. Jessica signed formal behavioral agreements about how future conflict would be handled. Mark, previously conflict-avoidant, learned that abdicating his power as CEO to keep the peace actually made things worse. He began showing up with more clarity, boundaries, and direct leadership.
Power, Mapped
In this story, the power dynamics were layered:
Mark held legitimate power as CEO and reward power as equity allocator.
Jessica held expert power and intense coercive power through her romantic influence.
Jared held expert power too—but lacked the emotional leverage Jessica had.
There was also a cultural power component: Jessica and Mark favored a collaborative style, while Jared defaulted to hierarchical decision-making. The result? Jessica and Mark aligned; Jared felt out of sync.
This case is a striking example of what happens when founders use “power over”—the ability to dominate or pressure—rather than cultivating “power to”: the ability to contribute, collaborate, and be heard.
When power becomes a tool to control outcomes—rather than deepen trust—it leaves wreckage. Teams fracture, and the long-term cost is often far greater than the short-term win.
Theme 3: Equal Titles, Unequal Dynamics — The Hidden Power Struggles of Co-CEOs
Sometimes founders try to neutralize power dynamics by “flattening” the structure—equal titles, even splits, shared decision-making. It sounds ideal in theory. In practice, it often reveals something deeper: an avoidance of difficult conversations about identity, control, and emotional safety.
That’s what happened with Joe and Jim, co-CEOs and close friends who built a fast-growing biotech company. On paper, they were equals. In reality, they were locked in a slow-burning power struggle.
Case Study: The Co-CEO Dilemma
Joe and Jim met in college. Smart, driven, and versatile, they chose to lead as co-CEOs—believing equal titles would reflect their mutual respect and partnership.
For a while, it worked. They raised millions from top-tier VCs and gained traction in the market. But after their Series B, cracks began to show. They fought constantly over strategy. Neither felt empowered to own a domain completely. Their friendship—once a source of strength—was deteriorating under the weight of suppressed frustrations.
Through our coaching work, we uncovered a familiar but rarely named pattern: power diffusion as a defense mechanism.
“If we’re equals, no one can get hurt,” one of them essentially said.
But by avoiding explicit roles and decisions, both cofounders became stuck—unable to lead clearly or provide honest feedback. Underneath the business disagreements were deeper feelings neither had language for: jealousy, dependency, fear of abandonment.
Their dynamic mirrored what psychologists call a codependent power loop:
Neither trusted the other to lead independently.
Both resented the lack of clarity, but feared rocking the boat.
Strategic decisions stalled because emotional safety was never addressed.
Eventually, they made a structural shift: Joe took full ownership of the CEO role. Jim stepped into a high-impact individual contributor position, focusing on what he did best—driving growth, metrics, and execution.
Even though they kept their co-CEO titles externally for optics, the internal power dynamic had shifted. They had learned to lead separately, give direct feedback, and rebuild trust through small cycles of conflict and repair.
From Group Therapy to Startup Growth: What the Research Shows
This isn’t just a one-off story. Joe and Jim’s dynamic reflects a broader truth in group development theory.
Drawing on the work of Yalom and Leszcz, early-stage teams often cycle through three phases:
Orientation & Dependency — Superficial harmony and unclear norms.
Conflict & Power Struggles — Tensions arise as members vie for influence.
Cohesion & Trust — Teams learn to engage conflict constructively and become high-performing.
Joe and Jim were stuck in Stage 2, a “storming” period made worse by unspoken psychological power dynamics. Only after confronting those tensions—rather than avoiding them—did they enter a more productive, aligned phase of leadership.
The Deeper Lesson: Power Isn’t a Problem—Avoiding It Is
Power is not inherently destructive. It’s inevitable. What causes breakdowns is the avoidance of naming it.
Here’s what I tell every founding team I work with:
You don’t get to choose whether power exists in your partnership. But you do get to choose how you relate to it.
The teams that thrive aren’t the ones who eliminate power—they’re the ones who stay in dialogue about it.
They explore how power shows up (sociologically, psychologically, culturally).
They name who holds influence, and why.
They align on how power should shift as the company scales.
Whether you’re the “visionary” founder, the expert operator, or the behind-the-scenes force—your power matters. And if you don’t shape it consciously, it will shape your team unconsciously.
Final Thought: From “Power Over” to “Power To”
To close, I often reference Esther Perel’s framing of power:
“Power over” is about control. It seeks to dominate, to win, to feel superior. It fuels resentment and weakens trust.
“Power to” is about agency. It invites contribution, clarity, and confidence. It strengthens relationships and cultures.
If your goal is to build a company that lasts, start here:
Have the conversations about power you’ve been avoiding. Not to flatten the structure, but to deepen the trust.
Because when founders feel secure in their power to lead, speak up, and be heard, that’s when the real magic happens.