When partners have different visions and paralyze the company

And the team doesn't know who to listen to

Do you recognize this situation?

• You and your partner (or partners) are no longer aligned on direction
• Every strategic decision becomes an exhausting negotiation
• The team receives conflicting directions
• Meetings become battlefields
• The company runs on inertia while you argue

---

Paralysis from shareholder misalignment

At the beginning you were perfectly aligned.

Same vision, same energy, same goals.
Decisions were fast, direction clear.

But over the years the roads have diverged.

One wants to grow, the other to consolidate.
One wants to invest, the other to distribute profits.
One wants to innovate, the other to maintain the status quo.

And the company, in the middle, doesn't move.

---

What happens when partners are in conflict

On the decision-making front:

• No important choice gets made
• Every proposal is seen as an "attack" on the other
• Urgent decisions are postponed "until we agree"
• The market changes, you argue

On the operational front:

• The team doesn't know which direction to follow
• People take sides with "partner A" or "partner B"
• Internal factions are created
• Those who work well leave: "nothing ever gets decided here"

On the economic front:

• Investments are blocked because "there's no agreement"
• Opportunities slip away because you respond too late
• The company loses value because it stays still
• Clients perceive instability

---

Why it happens

It's not malice, it's not incompetence.
It's personal evolution not synchronized.

People change.
Priorities change.
What you wanted at 30 is not what you want at 45.

One maybe has a family and seeks stability.
The other is single and seeks challenges.
One has already "made money" and wants to enjoy life.
The other still wants to prove something.

Both positions are legitimate.
But they're incompatible within the same company.

---

The (wrong) path many try

Apparent solution: Continue to mediate indefinitely

But mediation works on details, not on visions.
If the strategic direction is opposite, there's no compromise that works.

The result is a company that goes neither forward nor backward.
It's just consuming time and opportunities.

---

The 5-step method:

1. Brutal clarity on visions
   → What does each one really want in the next 5 years?
   → No generic answers: concreteness
2. Verify strategic alignment
   → Growth/consolidation?
   → Profits/reinvestment?
   → Innovation/stability?
   → If the answers are opposite, it's a structural problem
3. Redefinition of roles and decision-making areas
   → If possible: each governs an area
   → Autonomous decisions in their own areas
4. External neutral mediator
   → Someone who helps exit the emotional impasse
   → Focus on: what the company needs, not who's right
5. Exit scenario
   → If alignment is impossible, one must exit
   → Clear agreements, fair valuation, civil separation
   → Better to separate well than stay together badly

---

What changes after

The company starts moving again.

Decisions get made.
The team has a clear direction.
Opportunities are seized.

Whether the solution is realignment or separation, the important thing is to unblock.
Because immobility is the worst of choices.