The HN community is quick to attack MBAs, but when my first startup was in trouble, the founders weren't communicating, and Board members were yelling at each other, the conflict resolution skills of one board member, a business school professor, may have helped the situation more than anything else. His skills were a major motivation for me to go to business school, where I learned many relevant skills -- negotiation, general management, leadership, etc.

I now consider conflict management and resolution skills among the most important in making relationships endure and critically important for business leadership.

From one of my blog posts, "How to make relationships last":

I consider the main skills in resolving conflict

- Listening to others’ issues to understand them

- Making them feel understood

- Supporting them for their beliefs without judgment, even if you don’t agree or support their beliefs (not the distinction between supporting someone versus supporting their beliefs)

- Communicating your issues without blaming

- Maintaining calm

- Patience

- After all those, regular problem-solving skills

Develop those skills and you’ll be able to make relationships last longer by instilling loyalty.

I have a question regarding the type and amount of conflict between different organisations. I ask this because the kinds of issues in this article seem like common courtesy and respect to me.

What kind and how severe is the conflict at traditionally professional occupations such as legal professions, accountancy or medical? Does anyone have any first hand experience? What about industry? (chemical engineering, mechanical engineering and civil architects?)

How does it compare to tech startups?

My theory: 1) conflict in traditional industry is power struggle: who is the one who will tell everyone else what to do 2) office politics can get severe where there are alliances and empires 3) offence is caused by making other people's decisions look bad

In startups: 1) conflict is based on the perceived competence of others 2) offence is caused by the implied lack of knowledge, direct derision and ridicule

I believe that one is more common than the other. I'm saying that conflict in the technical community feels more like a frat competition than that of professional negotiation: young people not necessary secure in themselves.

While I agree with most of these points, I wish it were this simple.

The biggest problems are the VERY important issues people strongly disagree on.

These are the ones people end up leaving the company over.

It's usually not "You forgot to make coffee everyday." It's "You think we should price our product at $10 and I think it should be $100"

That is major problem that doesn't get resolved.

I think conflict resolution should be about making sure you are on the same page for the big stuff and then being able to laugh about the little stuff.

Still, it was a good post, something founders should think about.

I appreciate the feedback but honestly disagree with you here.

In my experience conflict never escalades because of facts or differences of opinion/approach but almost always because people get too "attached" to their ideas/approach/solution and can't differentiate or argue based on pure facts but get emotional and later "religious" about their side.

One of the Heroku founders once said something to the effect of "We like people that hold their strong opinions loosely"

I loved that quote. It means that you want to have people with strong opinions in startups but not people that hold on to their opinions too strongly and are not open to sometimes trying someone else's approach in the name of progress.

I wonder what the time-frame is for pg's observation that 20% of founders leave. During the 3 month YC period? Or ever?

It sounds like it's ever. I know he's mentioned overfunding as one of the primary wedge drivers into already-shaky teams, so that's post-YC.