talent & career development

nine factors for dividing the partner pie

by

cut pie chart on plate flanked by fork and knifehow to decide who gets how much voting power.

by bill reeb and dominic cingoranelli

people who can lead, develop, train and supervise others are worth much more than those who can just make themselves faster, better and stronger.

equity ownership allocation is a critical success factor if you expect your firm to continue after you leave.  for many firms, reallocation of equity ownership is or will be an important part of succession planning.  while it can cause some anxiety for your owners’ group as you go through the process, it’s better to confront the issues now, to help ensure that your firm is in good hands after your leave. it’s not necessarily easy, but it must be addressed for long-term success.

more on performance management: hazards of not reallocating equity | the pitfalls of equity allocation and reallocation | develop your employees or suffer the consequences | cpa firm performance assessments: 15 core competencies, 21 questions | do cpa firms need management or leadership?

when you are deciding which partners should have more say (or less say, which is just as important), you need to consider issues such as whose judgment partners trust, who is pulling the wagon, who consistently acts in the firm’s best interest, or who is viewed as a current or future leader. with this in mind, here are nine areas to evaluate or each partner: read more →

the hazards of not reallocating partner equity

by

unbalanced brass scales“this stage is usually when the crap hits the fan in many organizations.”

by bill reeb and dominic cingoranelli
卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 / succession institute

let’s look at the common pitfalls we find with ownership distribution, using scenarios to drive home various points. let’s say we have a five-partner firm.

the ownership and age is as follows:

partner                                 equity                 age

senior partner 1 (sp1)           35%                    65

senior partner 2 (sp2)           35%                    63

junior partner 1 (jp1)            15%                    53

junior partner 2 (jp2)            10%                    48

junior partner 3 (jp3)              5%                    42

first of all, many firms would die for this kind of age split as – unfortunately – many firms have partners much closer in age than this 23-year range example. but continuing on, let’s say senior partner 1 (sp1) wants to retire at the end of this year. if this would occur as it does in many firms, we would be scrambling for additional partners. but for the sake of this discussion, let’s say we just addedjunior partner 3 (jp3) last year and we will add jp1 immediately after sp1’s retirement with an ownership interest of 5 percent.

so, if this were to occur without unusual intervention, the new ownership percentages would look something like this a year later:

read more →

when two partners isn’t enough and three is too many

by

statue of scales of justice

the pitfalls of equity allocation and reallocation.

by bill reeb and dominic cingoranelli

i want to address the issue of equity – how it is commonly allocated to begin with, and then making adjustments to it over time.

for many firms, the idea in the beginning is that “all the partners are the same, so their ownership should be the same.” when the firm starts out with only a shingle, this is a very fair premise. so, for the sake of this column, let’s start out with a two-partner firm and build from there, talking through the common issues that arise in the area of distributing equity ownership.

more on performance management: develop your employees or suffer the consequences | cpa firm performance assessments: 15 core competencies, 21 questions | how to target what skills to develop now | what having your employees’ backs means | 5 harmful management attitudes (and how to fix them) | do cpa firms need management or leadership? | job 1 for the practice owner: client management

start with two

the most common approach would be for the two partners to split the ownership 50/50. the reason why this often works so well is because the two people who join together often are brought together because of their complementary skills. for example one might be very technically competent and the other more marketing savvy. together they make a great team – one, without the other, is less effective.

read more →

develop your employees or suffer the consequences

by

businesspeople discussing chartsevery employee, for developmental purposes, needs to directly report to somebody.

by bill reeb and dominic cingoranelli
卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 / succession institute

you may have established a competency model for your firm, but how do you use it to develop your people? let’s walk through what an action plan might look like to drive that development.

it is common for firms to have talented partners and principals.  depending on the firm’s size and organization structure, things start getting fuzzier from a competence perspective from there on down the organizational chart.

more on performance management: cpa firm performance assessments: 15 core competencies, 21 questions | how to target what skills to develop now | what having your employees’ backs means | 5 harmful management attitudes (and how to fix them) | do cpa firms need management or leadership? |  job 1 for the practice owner: client management

for example, some firms have a strong management group with a gap in talent starting at the senior or supervisor level. others might experience their talent gap at the manager level because everyone who shows any self-starting initiative or promise is moved to a principal position early on. it doesn’t matter the size of your firm, you will likely be feeling a big gap or drop in talent somewhere in your organizational chart.

read more →