Take our Ambition Test

Find a career counselor near me

The impulse to leave a cofounder is often a signal about what's missing, not a verdict on the relationship.

Resentfully staying connected to a cofounder generates friction that compounds across the business.

Before deciding on whether to leave a cofounder, the real work is generating personal clarity.

There's a particular kind of founder suffering that doesn't look like suffering from the outside.

The business is functioning, revenue is stable, and nobody's quitting. But something is quietly eating at you, and it has a painful emotional hook—one that you're often caught in, even within the same hour.

It's the thought: I'm done with this person, but I can't afford to blow this up.

That oscillation, rather than the question itself, is the problem.

The question you're considering, "Should I leave my cofounder?" is actually a legitimate and important one. If taken seriously, it can be one of the most clarifying experiences of a founder's career. It makes you look at what you're actually tolerating, and whether you still recognize yourself inside the challenging dynamic.

But most founders don't take it seriously. They let it run in the background, unresolved, like an open loop they forgot to close. They vent to their spouses, replay arguments in their heads during family dinners, and wait, unconsciously, for something catastrophic to make the decision for them.

Most of the time, what looks like patience is just the avoidance of a conversation you already know you need to have.

What the Fantasy Is Really About

In individual therapy, there's a principle worth borrowing: When someone discloses they've been fantasizing about cheating on a spouse, the therapist's first move isn't to weigh in on whether they should or should not have the affair. The more useful question for the therapist to ask is, What does this fantasy symbolize?

Often, the answer has to do with what is missing in their existing relationship. Things like spontaneity, intimacy, or feeling pursued, for example.

The same logic applies to cofounders.

When you think I want out, you're not just reacting to your cofounder's behavior in last Tuesday's argument. You're reacting to something deeper that's eroding, like a misalignment in values, unspoken power dynamics, or a slow drift in strategic prioritization and execution standards.

Maybe it's asymmetry in sacrifice: You're grinding 70-hour weeks while they seem to coast, and that gap feels less like a logistical problem and more like a betrayal. Maybe it's relational distance—you used to operate with intuitive trust, and now they feel like someone you need to manage. Or maybe, and this is the one most founders won't say out loud, you don't like who you're becoming. You're irritable at home. Distracted on weekends. Slowly losing access to the version of yourself that could actually enjoy any of this, and you're not sure how much of it is recoverable.

If you only engage with this question at the concrete level (stay or go; yes or no), you skip the deeper diagnostic work. You might exit a relationship that was actually fixable. Or you stay, resentfully, without understanding what you'd need to make it tolerable.

3 Patterns That Keep Founders Stuck

Most of the founders I work with aren't stuck because the situation is genuinely unresolvable. They're stuck for identifiable psychological reasons.

Take our Ambition Test

Find a career counselor near me

Projection as an exit strategy. When someone has tried a few hard conversations, and nothing shifted, the natural conclusion is: This person can't change. Sometimes that's accurate. But more often, it's a projection of a fixed mindset onto the cofounder. Concluding your cofounder is incapable is easier than admitting I don't know how to facilitate this, and I'm afraid of failing again. There's also a hidden assumption underneath that your cofounder's brain works the way yours does, that they should be able to see what you see and self-correct. When they don't, it reads as unwillingness. It's often not.

Incongruence masquerading as strategy. Founders frequently decide to stay in a broken partnership but pull back. The market's good. The business works. I'll just protect myself and ride this out. This feels pragmatic. It isn't. When you're physically present but emotionally checked out, you're saying you're committed while internally withdrawing. That state generates friction. It shows up in how you run a meeting, how your team reads the tension, and how fast small things escalate. Staying half-committed has a price that's easy to underestimate, especially in high-stakes environments where your emotional state is essentially a business input.

Staying in the spiral instead of the question. There's a meaningful difference between venting about a problem and sitting inside it honestly. Most founders do the former. They release steam to their spouse, to a mentor, to themselves at 2 a.m., but they never actually metabolize the pain or reckon seriously with what inaction is costing them, now and in six months. Research on venting suggests the relief is temporary and that expressing anger without resolution can sustain rather than reduce it (Bushman, 2002). The release valve feeling of venting is nice, but it doesn't move anything, and it keeps the question perpetually open.

The Identity Layer Beneath the Business Decision

Here's what makes the cofounder question harder than most business decisions: it's not really a business decision.

The real questions underneath it tend to be: Who am I without this company? Am I capable of building something on my own? Is what I'm tolerating here actually acceptable to me, or have I just normalized it?

Those are identity questions. And the longer you've gone without asking them, the harder they are to sit with.

If you don't do this work, you're likely to make the wrong call because you're making a decision from a version of yourself that's been running on fumes for months rather than a clear one.

The most useful reframe I can offer is to stop trying to answer "stay or go" and start trying to generate clarity. Those are different projects.

Clarity doesn't come from thinking harder about the question. It comes from engaging the things you've been circling around, like the specific breakdown, the conversation you've avoided, and the ask you haven't made.

That usually requires something you can't generate by yourself from inside the problem. You often can't see your own contribution to the dynamic clearly when you're the one living it. Someone outside the dynamic—a therapist, a coach, anyone not personally invested in the outcome—will see things you genuinely cannot.

Most founders who think they've exhausted their options have actually just exhausted the options that didn't require asking for help.

A Few Questions Worth Sitting With

If you're in the oscillation right now, write out your answers to these questions:

Is the problem your cofounder, or is it what the partnership has done to you over time?

If you fast-forward twelve months and nothing has shifted, what does that version of your life actually look like?

Are you making this decision from clarity or from exhausted resignation?

What's the conversation you've been constructing in your head but haven't actually had?

If you answer these questions honestly, that's a starting point. Not to make a decision about the relationship's future, but a decision about your own willingness to engage with it fully.

To find a therapist, visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory.

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289002

© Psychology Today