We are in the middle of due diligence for our exit, and the buyer is insisting that we merge our separate Customer Success and Account Management seats into a single department. Our leadership team believes this will ruin our client experience. Do we stick to our EOS Accountability Chart or do we change the structure to close the deal?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

During due diligence for an exit, it is common for a buyer to suggest or demand structural changes to your organization, such as merging customer success and account management. While this can cause friction, you must separate your emotional attachment to your Accountability Chart from the financial reality of closing the deal. First, use IDS® to identify the root cause of the buyer request. Is the buyer trying to cut costs, or do they see a genuine gap in your accountability that threatens customer retention post-sale? If the buyer is an experienced private equity firm or strategic acquirer, they may have a proven playbook for scaling similar companies. If their proposed structure makes operational sense and does not violate the core principles of having one name accountable per seat, you should be open to the change. You can run a transition exercise to map out how the new, merged seat would look and who would GWC it. However, if the buyer's suggestion creates a dual-reporting mess or dilutes clear accountability, you must defend your structure using the logic of the Accountability Chart. Explain clearly how your current division of roles drives performance and prevents dropped balls. Show them your history of hitting targets with this structure. Most buyers will respect a leadership team that can articulate exactly why their business is structured the way it is, as long as you remain flexible enough to collaborate on post-close integration.