Insights
In Canadian private equity and search-fund deals, the thesis is bought but the return is operated. How an operating partner creates value after close.
A private equity or search-fund deal closes on a story. The buyer saw a good business, a defensible position, a price that made sense, and a credible path to the company being worth more in five years than it is worth today. That story is the thesis. It gets the deal done. It does not run the company.
I work on the other side of that equation. Once the wire clears, someone has to turn the thesis into results inside a business that, in the lower middle market, usually arrives founder-run and lightly documented. That is the operating partner's job. It is quieter than the deal, it takes longer, and it is where the return is actually earned.
For a long time, a lot of private equity returns came from two places that had little to do with how the business was run: cheap debt and a higher sale multiple than the entry multiple. Buy well, borrow, wait, sell into a friendlier market. That era has cooled. Recent industry studies attribute most of the value created in recent exits to revenue and margin growth inside the company rather than to financial engineering or a re-rating. One analysis of funds raised after 2020 found that managers who focus on improving operations earn a couple of points more of annual return, on average, than peers who do not.
Read that plainly and it says something uncomfortable for a buyer. The parts of the return you can count on are the parts you have to build. Sales that grow because the pipeline is managed. Margin that improves because the process wastes less. A business that a new owner will pay more for because it no longer depends on one person. None of that happens on its own after close. Somebody has to go in and do the work, week after week, and most deal teams are not built to stay that long or go that deep.
A company doing three, eight, fifteen million in revenue is a different animal from a mature mid-cap. It got where it is on the strength of a founder who knows every customer, prices the big jobs in their head, and holds the real operating knowledge nowhere but in their own memory. That founder is the reason the business is worth buying. They are also the single largest risk you just took on.
These businesses tend to arrive with the same profile. Processes live in people, not in documents. There is a bookkeeper and a bank balance but no monthly scorecard anyone trusts. Roles blur, because when you are small everyone does a bit of everything. There is no clear second layer of management, so every hard decision still routes to the owner. None of this is a failing. It is simply what a company looks like before anyone had a reason to build the systems. After an acquisition, you suddenly have a very good reason, and a clock. If you want to understand how deep that dependence usually runs, I wrote a separate piece on what owner dependence actually is and why it caps a company's value.
The first hundred days set the tone for the whole hold. The temptation is to arrive with a plan and start changing things. The better move is to stabilize first, learn hard, and change little until you understand what is load-bearing.
In practice the early work is concrete. Sit with the people who do the work and watch what actually happens, not what the org chart says happens. Find the handful of numbers that tell you whether the business is healthy, and start measuring them even if the first readings are rough. Protect the things that made the company good, because a founder-run business is full of undocumented judgement that is easy to break and expensive to rebuild. Then pick the two or three moves that matter most in year one and sequence them. A hundred-day plan that names five priorities is really a plan with none. The discipline is choosing.
If I had to name the one operational job that decides whether an acquisition works, it is reducing the company's dependence on its founder. Every other improvement sits downstream of this. You cannot standardize a process that only exists in someone's head. You cannot report on a business whose real state only one person can read. You cannot sell, in three or five years, a company that stops functioning the week the founder leaves.
The work is unglamorous and it is mostly writing and teaching. Get the operating knowledge out of the founder's memory and into documents that a normal competent person can follow. Build the second layer of management the company never had, so decisions stop routing to one desk. Hand off real authority, not just tasks, and let people make some mistakes inside guardrails. Done well, this is also the founder's exit ramp, which matters, because in most of these deals the founder is staying on for a transition and needs to feel the business is in good hands.
Once the knowledge is out of one head, you can standardize how the work gets done. This is Lean territory and it is my home ground. Map how a job actually flows from order to cash. Find where it waits, where it doubles back, where it gets redone. Write the standard for the steps that matter, teach it, and check that it held. The goal is not a binder nobody opens. It is a business that produces the same good result whether or not the best person is in that day.
Alongside standard work you install a reporting rhythm. A short weekly number that tells the team whether the week is on track. A monthly scorecard that tells the owner and the investor the truth about the business in one page. A cadence of meetings that are short, decision-focused, and the same every time. Investors often ask for reporting so they can watch the company. The deeper value is that the rhythm forces the company to watch itself, and a business that watches itself catches problems while they are still cheap.
A lot of theses in this market are buy-and-build. Acquire a platform, then bolt on smaller companies and grow into a bigger, more valuable whole. The financial logic is sound and the operational execution is where most of these plans lose their promised return.
The deal for an add-on is done on paper. The integration is done on the floor. Two companies now have two accounting systems, two ways of quoting, two payroll runs, two cultures, and often two founders with strong opinions about whose way is right. Someone has to decide which processes become the standard, migrate the systems without dropping a customer, keep the good people through the fear that follows an acquisition, and capture the savings that justified the price in the first place. This is operating work, not deal work, and it is repeatable. The second add-on should go more smoothly than the first because you built a real integration playbook after the first, and the fifth should feel routine. Buyers who treat each integration as a fresh emergency are leaving the return on the table.
The cleanest way to run the hold is to operate as if a buyer's diligence team could walk in next quarter. Clean books, documented processes, a management team that survives the founder, honest numbers with a history. Build the business that way from month one and the eventual sale is a formality rather than a scramble. Leave it undocumented and owner-dependent, and the sale process becomes the moment every hidden weakness surfaces at once, usually at the worst possible price. I have written about how that plays out in why deals die in due diligence, and the same weaknesses that kill a sale are the ones an operating partner should be closing every month of the hold.
One more thing matters for Canadian deals, and it is often underweighted from Toronto or from south of the border. A great many of the best lower-middle-market targets are in Quebec, or in bilingual markets like New Brunswick and Manitoba. The floor runs in French. The customers buy in French. Since Bill 96, the compliance expectations around the language of work in Quebec are real and rising. An operating partner who can write the SOP in French, teach it in French, run the weekly meeting in French, and still report cleanly to an English-speaking fund is solving an integration problem that a unilingual operator simply cannot. This is operations, not translation, and on a Quebec deal it can be the difference between a plan that lands and a plan that stalls.
Not every deal needs, or can afford, a full-time operating partner on staff. Most lower-middle-market portfolio companies need operating leadership for a season, not forever, which is where an outside fractional operator fits. There are a few ways I work with investors and the teams they back.
If you are an investor, the operating side is where your thesis is proven or lost, and it deserves as much attention as the model did. If you are the operator being backed, you do not have to build all of this alone while also running the day job. Either way, the plainest next step is a short conversation about the specific business and where its friction really sits. You can get in touch and tell me about the deal.
What does an operating partner actually do in a private equity portfolio? An operating partner turns the investment thesis into results inside the company after close. That means the first-hundred-day plan, reducing the business's dependence on its founder, standardizing how the work gets done, installing a reporting rhythm the owner and investor can trust, integrating add-on acquisitions operationally, and keeping the business exit-ready. It is the hands-on operating work that earns the return the deal only promised.
Why do lower-middle-market companies need an operating partner more than larger ones? Smaller acquired companies usually arrive founder-run and lightly documented. The operating knowledge lives in one person's head, there is no trusted monthly scorecard, and there is no second layer of management. A larger company has already built those systems. A three-to-fifteen-million-dollar business almost never has, so the operating gap, and the opportunity, is widest exactly there.
How is integrating an add-on acquisition an operating problem? The purchase is agreed on paper, but two companies still have two accounting systems, two ways of quoting, two payrolls and two cultures. Deciding which processes become the standard, migrating systems without losing customers, keeping key people, and actually capturing the promised savings all happen on the floor, not in the deal room. A repeatable integration playbook is what makes the second and fifth add-ons easier than the first.
Why does a bilingual operator matter for Canadian deals? Many of the strongest lower-middle-market targets are in Quebec or in bilingual provinces where the business runs in French. Since Bill 96, expectations around the language of work in Quebec are rising. An operator who can document, train, meet and lead in French while reporting cleanly to an English-speaking fund solves an integration problem a unilingual operator cannot. It is an operations advantage, not a translation task.
Provenance Advisory Group, bilingual training and fractional operations for owner-run businesses in Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick, and operations and Lean training for public-service teams and not-for-profits across Canada.
Curious where your own business stands? The free Operations Health Check takes five minutes.
Book a callBook a callSkip the form, you'll reach Kobe directly. No call centre, no script.
Call +1 (204) 399-3054