In my experience, cross-selling problems aren’t usually about goodwill or disagreement over whether collaboration is a good idea. Partners (or Managing Directors) usually like and respect each other, and they clearly see the benefits to clients.

The real issue is usually that the firm hasn’t decided how to assign revenue credit when two people contribute to winning or expanding an engagement. Revenue credit isn't the same thing as compensation, but in most firms it's a major input into compensation decisions. When revenue credit is vague, conflicts increase, and cross-selling usually stalls.

Two frameworks show up repeatedly in the firms I work with: double counting and finder/minder/grinder. Depending on a firm’s circumstances, one may fit better than the other. But in my experience, most firms eventually need to layer something on top of either one to drive cross-selling.

Double Counting

This incentive framework credits every contributing partner with the full amount of the engagement revenue. Most firms cap it at two partners on a single engagement.

Its biggest strength is that it removes almost all of the arguing over relative contribution. There's nothing to negotiate. Bringing a colleague into an engagement feels like a win for everyone involved.

The weaknesses tend to show up after a few years. As collaboration increases, revenue credit drifts further from revenue reality. The total amount of revenue credit across the firm begins to exceed the revenue the firm actually collected. Because partners naturally expect to be materially rewarded based on the revenue they are credited, compensation costs start to become unsustainable.

Leadership also starts to lose one of the primary purposes of revenue credit: understanding who is actually creating commercial value. When everyone receives full credit, it becomes much harder to distinguish who originated or expanded client relationships from who simply participated.

Because of this, firms usually need to unwind the approach after a few years.

This framework can work well for firms that:

1. Want to trigger a significant increase in cross-selling over the next few years.
2. Have a culture that can absorb change if leadership decides to reverse course later.

Finder/Minder/Grinder

This is the most common model I encounter. It is based on the "Modified Hale & Dorr" system, attributed to the Boston law firm that created it decades ago and had a lot of success.

• The Finder originates the client opportunity.
• The Minder owns and manages the client relationship going forward.
• The Grinder performs the technical work

A common allocation is 20% to the Finder, 20% to the Minder, and 60% to the Grinder, although the percentages vary by firm.

Many engagements have the same person filling all three roles, resulting in 100% of the revenue credit going to one partner. But the model also allows multiple colleagues to receive revenue credit when they each contribute.

For example, an audit partner who originated the client and remains actively involved might occupy both the Finder and Minder roles, while the Grinder role recognizes a tax advisory partner delivering the work.

It can also handle more complex, yet very common, fact patterns. For example, say that same tax advisor identifies a debt valuation opportunity while working with the client. It may make sense for the audit partner to remain the Finder, recognizing the original investment in the relationship, while the tax advisor becomes the Minder and the debt valuation partner fills the Grinder role. (Side note: Firms should document these common scenarios in written policies so leaders apply them consistently.)

This model has many strengths. The biggest is that every contribution is defined upfront at the engagement level. Total revenue credit ties dollar-for-dollar to actual firm revenue. That gives leadership a clean commercial scorecard and creates a much more straightforward starting point for compensation discussions.

The weakness is that, by itself, this model often does not reward cross-selling enough. In some cases, it can actively discourage it.

Bringing in a colleague to do the minding or grinding means giving away a meaningful share of your revenue credit, which, in many firms, ultimately affects compensation. Sometimes the client clearly needs expertise the originator (Finder) doesn't have. (In which case they would be motivated to bring in a colleague so as not to lose 100% of the revenue credit.) But often the line is less clear.

A classic example is industry specialization. A generalist Finder may be perfectly capable of helping a hospital client. Would that client probably receive a better outcome from the firm's healthcare practice? Probably. But is the firm asking the Finder to give up 30% of the revenue credit to bring the other team in when she could reasonably deliver the engagement herself and keep all of it?

In the short term, the firm may benefit from completing projects as efficiently as possible. But most firms are playing a much longer game. A project delivered without the specialized expertise the client really needed is easier to commoditize. When the next opportunity comes along, that client may decide to hire a competitor with a dedicated healthcare team instead.

What to Do: Layer in Cross-Selling-Specific Incentives

Neither model reliably produces cross-selling on its own. Double counting rewards collaboration generously, but eventually becomes expensive. Finder/minder/grinder allocates revenue credit fairly, but fair allocation is not the same thing as motivating behavior.

The firms that consistently build cross-selling cultures add targeted incentives on top of whichever foundational model they use. Below are some common examples.

Commission

A meaningful, incremental payment on top of the firm's normal compensation process for a successful cross-sale is one of the fastest ways to signal that cross-selling matters.

In my experience, this works really well for two to three years. After that, it starts to feel like an entitlement. Much of the success also comes from existing rainmakers rather than spreading broadly across the partnership.

I generally recommend commissions as an effective catalyst, not a permanent solution.

Non-Monetary Incentives

Make cross-selling visible, and make it matter.

Track cross-sold revenue and engagement counts on a simple dashboard. Recognize contributors in partner meetings and all-hands meetings. Make cross-selling an explicit factor in partner admissions and leadership appointments, not simply nice context during the reviews.

This is where many firms are already heading.

Most firms also benefit from investing in the enablement behind cross-selling. Compensation only changes behavior when partners are confident the introduction will go well.

The biggest barrier is usually trust. When I was an MD considering making a colleague introduction, I always had the same two questions: Will this colleague make me look good in front of my client? Is this really a service my client needs?

Those concerns are solvable. Create one-page service summaries that help partners recognize opportunities. Hold short, recurring sessions where practices teach one another what they do. Join partners together in small training cohorts long enough to build real familiarity and trust.

Rewards for Account Growth

Some of the strongest cross-selling cultures I see are in teams organized around accounts.

Each account has a designated account leader who is responsible for growing the overall relationship, not just selling one service line. When accountability is centered on total account growth, expanding services naturally becomes part of the job.

Depreciating Origination Credit

Many client relationships generate work for years, sometimes decades. Without limits, the original Finder can continue receiving revenue credit long after the behaviors that created the relationship have ended.

Several firms I've worked with address this by gradually reducing the amount of revenue credit attached to origination over time. Compensation may or may not follow that schedule directly, but the change in revenue credit sends an important signal about who is expected to keep building the relationship.

This changes behavior. The original Finder no longer feels they're giving up an endless stream of future credit, making them more willing to bring in colleagues. At the same time, it creates a clear path for another partner to eventually assume the Finder role once the original originator is no longer actively involved.

‍
The Right Answer

Many other examples of cross-selling incentives exist beyond the ones listed above. The point is that the right answer isn't choosing between double counting and finder/minder/grinder. Both can work because they're solving a measurement problem: how the firm assigns revenue credit.

The firms that do cross-selling really well use revenue credit as one tool, not the whole incentive system. They build compensation, recognition, accountability, and trust around it. That's usually the difference between firms that talk about cross-selling and firms where it simply becomes part of how people work.

‍