In this blog, I confront the discomfort of a teammate’s abrupt resignation, seeing beyond the immediate tension to the deeper challenge of evolving from a scrappy startup to a scalable company. I reflect on the need for a culture that can hold space for hard feedback without combusting, where emotional exits don’t shortcut the growth that conflict can offer. I realize that building a resilient team means prioritizing maturity, directness, and conflict resolution over harmony or avoidance. Leadership, for me, isn’t about defusing every spark—it’s about equipping others to handle heat and keep building together.
We recently had an abrupt resignation following a difficult interpersonal exchange—one that, at first glance, seemed like a clash of personalities. But stepping back, it revealed something deeper: the organizational growing pains that occur when a startup shifts from scrappy early execution into a more structured, accountable phase of scaling.
One of our earlier team members, someone who played a meaningful role in helping us go from 0 to 1, resigned following a tense moment of feedback from a newer hire. The interaction happened in front of me and others, and while the content of the feedback may have touched on valid performance concerns, the way it was delivered—direct, critical, and lacking prior 1:1 context—struck a nerve. Instead of raising a concern privately or debriefing afterward, the team member exited the situation emotionally, and then, shortly after, exited the company entirely.
The resignation wasn’t discussed, negotiated, or timed thoughtfully. It was abrupt. And that alone says something—not just about the individual, but about what we need to expect and cultivate in this next chapter of our company. Startups move quickly. What works in one phase—like informal, flat structures and top-down access—can become liabilities as the company grows. We hire new people who are here to push us to the next level, and with them come new perspectives, pressures, and personalities. Not everyone is going to communicate in the same style. Not every piece of feedback is going to be sugar-coated. Sometimes it’s clumsy. Sometimes it’s sharp. But the job of leadership isn’t to eliminate tension. It’s to grow through it.
What I want—what any founder should want—are people who can handle discomfort without becoming destructive. People who don’t run from difficult interactions, but use them as opportunities to clarify, reset, and align. I’m not interested in performative harmony. I’m interested in resilience. And resilience doesn’t mean silence or submission—it means choosing to stay engaged when things get uncomfortable. It means pulling someone aside for a hard conversation, instead of turning friction into finality.
The issue here wasn’t just the public feedback or the abrupt departure. It was the bypassing of conflict resolution entirely. That’s what troubled me most. Because as we grow, I don’t want to be the person always resolving issues from above. I want a team that knows how to resolve things at their level—directly, maturely, and with the intent to build, not burn bridges.
The truth is: feedback is going to get tougher. Roles will evolve. Accountability will increase. And the grace period many have enjoyed in the early stages will narrow. What we’re building now requires a different kind of contributor—one who can take feedback on the chin, reflect on it honestly, and decide what to do next based on outcomes, not emotions. You don’t build a great company by being fragile. You build it by sticking through hard moments, being open to critique, and still choosing to move forward with the team.
As a startup founder, I want fewer escalations. I want fewer dramatic exits. I want fewer unresolved tensions dumped upward. What I want most of all is a team of grownup builders who can disagree, recalibrate, and keep building. Because that’s what separates people who participate in a company from people who help lead one.
…