It Takes Two

A few notable partnerships have thrived with something close to 50-50 power sharing. Since Moore and Greenberg founded Sapient, in 1991, they have been equal partners - to the point of sharing the title of CEO and chairman. All major decisions require their agreement. "By making sure that we are both comfortable with the big decisions, we cover all of our bases," says Moore. "We make better decisions together than we would on our own."

Sapient's recent reorganization is a case in point. As of early 1997, its staff was organized geographically: Employees were assigned to clients according to region. Moore proposed restructuring the staff around six key industries. "I thought we needed to deepen our industry expertise," he says.

Greenberg, concerned about the repercussions of such a fundamental change, suggested that the company try a pilot program first. It did, and Moore and Greenberg discovered that many employees didn't favor the new arrangement. Some had developed technical specialties that they were able to apply across various industries. Realizing that Sapient needed both transferable and industry-specific expertise, Greenberg and Moore decided to regroup only the company's vice presidents around industries, leaving the rest of the staff free to choose their own specialties.

"I'm good at seeing what we need to do to grow this company," says Moore. "But Jerry is good at seeing how much change the organization can assimilate. We regulate each other."

Can You Avoid Arguments?

In a word, no. "Disagreements are inevitable," says Klainer. "If you run from them or push them under the rug, eventually they'll just cause bigger problems."

In fact, the most successful partners actually make it a point to cultivate disagreement. The real question is, How do you disagree without being disagreeable? When Susser and Ferrara faced the dilemma of whether to move their office to Pacific Palisades, a high-rent district on a beach in Southern California, they held a kind of Socratic dialogue. Each partner would challenge the other's position in an effort to arrive at the best answer. Susser argued that the move would put their company on the map; Ferrara objected that rent for the new office would be too expensive. Back and forth they went, until they finally convinced themselves -- and each other -- to go ahead with the move.

"The truth is, we were both very ambivalent," says Susser. "But we always test each other's positions, and force the other person to think through and justify his point of view. I think that's what has made us successful."

To be sure, a disagreement about the location of an office, however intense at the time, is ultimately an issue of modest importance. More basic disagreements - for example, over a company's direction and strategy - can test the very essence of a partnership. And given how quickly and radically the competitive landscape can change, the occasions for such disagreements are difficult to avoid.

Take the case of Smith and Masterson at US Interactive. When they founded the company, in 1994, both wanted to build what Smith called "a lifestyle company" - one that would be successful, but not so hell-bent on success that it would take on all the headaches of a large company. Less than two years later, the partners realized that they had the potential to develop US Interactive into a major company - if they moved quickly to bring in outside investors. Masterson was excited by the prospect. "He saw this window of opportunity and said, 'Let's go for it,' " Smith recalls. Smith was more cautious, wanting to stay on their current course.

They recognized that this was the kind of conflict that could end their partnership. So they committed themselves to resolving it through a process that Smith calls "violent agreement." "We battle, but we always keep in mind that, at the end of the day, we're on the same side."

So they talked. Then they talked some more. How would their roles change if they were part of a big company? Who would handle day-to-day finances? How would the culture of the company change? Was the opportunity worth it?

Finally, after two months, Smith reversed course: "The more we discussed it, the more I realized that there didn't have to be such a big difference between the culture of a small company and that of a big company. I guess I caught Rich's enthusiasm too."

And he's glad that he did. Not only has the company become a major Internet player, but Smith, like most members of a winning partnership, can't imagine what life would be like today if he and Masterson had gone their separate ways. "Could either of us have achieved this much alone?" he asks. "Perhaps, but we definitely wouldn't have had as much fun."

Pamela Kruger (pkruger@fastcompany.com) is a Fast Company contributing editor based in Milburn, New Jersey. Her colleagues consider her a great partner.