United We Stand?

 

More years ago, than I care to remember, my father wanted to take the family to the once famous and now long shuttered Palisades Amusement Park in New Jersey for a Saturday outing. My mother however being a lifelong lover of the outdoors wanted to travel up to farm country for an extended nature hike, while my brother and I suggested a day at one of the local beaches.

Needless to say, our opinion carried extremely little weight, while my father and mother “discussed” which venue would occupy our day. Eventually my mother relented and shortly thereafter we found ourselves crossing the George Washington Bridge to New Jersey.

As luck would have it, my sibling and I got nauseous on the rides, requiring multiple bottles of ginger ale from the concession stands and before we would change into our suits to romp in what was then billed as the world’s largest salt-water pool, it began to rain. I do not think my parents exchanged a half dozen words over the next week.

If nothing else, this unfortunate vignette illustrates the importance of everyone being on the same proverbial page. And perhaps that axiom is no more critical than when a multi-partner CPA firm is contemplating a merger. There have been countless articles and webinars centering on how vital the concept of partner unity but until you witness it up close and personal any appreciation is somewhat diluted.

Case in point. We are currently working with a five-partner firm in the Northeast with no succession plan and little evidence on their bench of someone capable of taking over once the older partners begin their exodus. So, I began the painstaking process of introducing them to a number of potential successor firms – seven to be exact, all capable of easily absorbing their practice and filling the void in capacity of any of the retiring owners.

Once the meetings began it was turning the time machine back to 1967 and Palisades Park.

Two of the partners liked firms A & B, while another pair preferred C & D. One like three of five possible successors while another dismissed them all and wanted to meet more practices.

So, I had to sit them down and have a come to Jesus moment – virtually of course. I explained to them that they were fast approaching what is commonly referred to as “paralysis by analysis.” The more firms they meet, the more confused and divided they would ultimately become. I probably committed a form of blasphemy by suggesting that the older partners with a one-or-two-year timeline should have the least amount of input since they would not be the ones hanging around, while the younger owners who sought to be equity owners in a merged firm should have the majority vote.

The ensuing silence spoke volumes.

We all agreed to resume discussions after May 17^th, but something tells me, it will be the stomach churning rides and salt-water pool all over again.