Moving To The One-Firm Model
Marc Rosenberg, CPATo me, the one-firm concept means:
- Everyone buys into a common vision.
- Its crystal clear what everyone’s role is in the firm.
- Partners agree to be accountable for their conduct and performance.
- Clients are clients of the firm, not the individual. Clients freely and willingly transferred between partners for the good of the client and the firm.
- Retirement buyouts are not linked with book of business.
- Comp plans discourage doing what’s best for “me” instead of what’s best for “us.”
- Partners get others involved with their clients instead of doing everything themselves.
- Partners cross-sell each other’s services and work together on clients.
- Work is pushed down to the lowest possible level.
After reading the above, why wouldn’t EVERYONE adopt the one-firm model… …IMMEDIATELY?
What do YOU think? I’d really like to get some responses to this. Let me hear from you!
Posted in Management/Governance
6 Comments
Get our expertise delivered to your inbox.
Hi Marc – I completely agree with your vision of the “one-firm model”. I think firms that operate in this manner will be more successful in the future through truly working as a partnership. A one-firm model also sends a powerful message to staff that we are all committed to common goals and not creating silos.
Take care,
Glenn
I agree with the Vision except that a Partners buy-out should be linked(partial or in total) to the retention of “their” clients. This will provide an incentive for the retiring Partners to transition their client relationships. This is especially true when the retiring Partner was acquired/merged during the past 10-15 years
Barry – excellent point. However, you can STILL tie the retirement payments to the retention of clients managed by the retiring partner at the time he/she retires AND base the computation of the retirement payments on a method other than book of business, such as multiple of compensation or AAV. This allows partners to freely transfer clients to others without worrying about reducing their retirement pay.
Alan, from a CPA firm in Kentucky, asked me to post his comment: “I agree with this and like your blogs. We adopted this model a few years ago.” What is interesting to me is that many firms tend to consider the “one-firm” concept to be for “larger” firms. Alan’s firm, at 5 partners and $2.5 million of annual fees, certainly would not be considered “large.”
Thanks for this post, Marc. From years of experience inside a firm and consulting with other firms, the one-firm model helps the firm make more money.
If firms want to operate as a silo firm (each partner has their own “way” of doing things and they are basically sharing expenses), that’s okay – just admit it and move on).
I find many firms claim to be one firm but in reality are not. The staff sees it immediately and continually gets mixed signals. If you can train people inside your firm on “the firm way” of doing things (one way), it eliminates confusion and the work gets completed more efficiently.
Marc, I could not agree more. We have made some progress toward this concept, however managing partners is like herding cats! The concept sounds great….. until it entails subordinating your own desires to those of the firm. As one of my Managing Partner friends put it…. “all my problems are Partner problems”.
However, I have already experienced at our own firm (55 people), that we will not be able to grow and progress beyond where we are now without embracing this “one firm” philosophy. Without this mentality, the firm will not enjoy the benefits of “bigger” , only the detriments.