Pivoting isn’t panic, it’s a process

Pivoting shouldn’t be an impulsive reaction to a bad week. It’s a deliberate decision that can affect the product, the target customer, and sometimes the team. What founders need is continuous learning with clear checkpoints: talk to customers early, test assumptions fast, and be honest about whether the “pain” you’re solving is big enough – and frequent enough – that customers will actually pay.

As Aleks put it, early traction can become a trap if it keeps you repeating the same playbook without real progress: “If you do the same things, you get the same results.”

A shared vision keeps hard decisions from turning into chaos

Both pivots and shutdowns are emotionally heavy, but the speakers emphasized that clarity can reduce the damage. One approach was building alignment around a shared vision: what you’re trying to reach, how you’ll get there, and what kind of team is needed for the journey. When that picture is clear, the hard conversations become less personal and more directional: this is the plan; these are the milestones; this is the team structure it requires.

Radical transparency with teams and investors

On the “how do you tell people?” question, the panel was aligned: hiding reality is what destroys morale. Keeping the numbers, runway, experiments, and possible scenarios visible helps teams stay grounded – and helps investors support you earlier, not just after things collapse.

Aleks described an operating style where nothing came as a shock: “Everybody in the team always knew what’s happening – how much cash is left, what our runway looks like, and what the next experiments are.” He added that even when outcomes aren’t “storybook exits,” transparency can make tough decisions feel like a transition, not a collapse.

Elise echoed the importance of openness with investors and boards: when bad news isn’t “punished,” you can discuss pivots and alternatives sooner – before you’re forced into a corner.

“Emotional runway” is real, and it runs out

When the panel turned to shutdown decisions, Marek offered one of the clearest rules of thumb of the session: you need wins – regular signs of forward motion. Without them, founders don’t just burn cash; they burn themselves. “You need those wins, otherwise you’re burning yourself emotionally and you’re burning your emotional runway,” he said.

For Marek, a key mechanism was setting a deadline: try a pivot, define what “success” looks like by a certain time, and if it doesn’t happen, stop. He framed shutting down as leadership, not failure – especially when you do it in time. In Scorestars’ case, the team had runway left, returned money to investors, and sold the IP created during the pivot. Even after closing, interest in the product continued, which underscored that ending a company isn’t “the end of the world” – just the end of that setup.

Ending isn’t always a shutdown; sometimes it’s a merge, sale, or tough exit

Aleks described how an exit only became a serious option late in the journey. Promoty pivoted near the end of its runway, raised a small bridge, and built a product that quickly grew to break even. But the bridge was spent, the founders were putting in their own money, and fundraising became harder. Under that pressure, the question shifted from “how do we push through?” to “what are the realistic options?” – and that was the first time Aleks seriously started thinking about shutting down.

He also explained that acquisition talks didn’t start as a formal sales process. Promoty and Modash had known each other for years, joking about a merger or being acquired, until those conversations became practical about a year before the deal. They spoke on and off from January through August, agreed in August, and closed in January. The panel’s point was broader than one story: “in-between endings” like joining forces, selling IP, or exploring acquisition can be messy and uncertain, but still responsible outcomes.

Elise highlighted another mindset shift founders often resist: being able to discuss “death scenarios” doesn’t mean you’ve given up – it means you’re prepared. “Every single startup founder has to be able to think about death. It’s part of the lifecycle,” Elise stated.

Teams: choose complementary skills, not just close friends

A practical point landed strongly with the audience: early teams built from close friends can be comforting – but often lack the skill diversity needed to survive pivots, sales cycles, and scaling demands. The panel’s advice was to prioritize complementary strengths and shared values, and to use advisors/mentors (ideally “one step ahead” of you) to raise your hiring bar and avoid costly mis-hires.

A simple test was also suggested for choosing co-founders: a week in the forest, without phones. If the team still wants to work together after that kind of offline pressure-cooker – away from distractions, routines, and easy exits – it becomes a stronger signal that the relationship can handle the intensity of building a startup.

It also reinforced a practical reality: many startups don’t stall because the idea isn’t good, but because the right people don’t meet at the right time. To make those matches more intentional, Tehnopol Startup Matchmaking connects early-stage teams and startup-minded specialists through ongoing matching and structured meetups focused on building real teams (not just swapping contacts). Read more and sign up here.