Best-practices regarding flexibility and commitment in co-search models

searcher profile

January 21, 2026

by a searcher from Hitotsubashi University in Bonn, Deutschland

I am currently exploring a (self-funded) co-search / tandem search model with a potential partner with shared resources, divided responsibilities, and the intention to primarily or exclusively pursue joint acquisitions. We would greatly appreciate examples from others who have done this formally or informally: How much flexibility did you preserve during the search (e.g., unexpected job offers, solo-fit opportunities, side projects)? How did you agree on and formalize that flexibility to keep everything reliable, transparent, and fair? Which specific scenarios did you explicitly plan for (job offers, solo deals despite a joint mandate, side hustles, breaks, full exit of one searcher, etc.)? We are of course especially interested in concrete solutions, lessons learned, and would be extremely thankful for templates or sample language (e.g., SHA or similar agreements). Also very happy to connect 1:1. Thanks a lot in advance!
1
7
147
Replies
7
commentor profile
Reply by a searcher
from Dartmouth College in Garden Grove, CA, USA
I’ve seen co-search work best when flexibility is talked through early, not left implicit. The setups that seem to hold up are the ones where partners are clear on what’s truly “joint” (industry, size, geo), what happens if a solo-fit deal shows up, and how things unwind if someone gets a job offer or wants to step back. Most folks I know kept it lightweight a short SHA or side letter that covers sourcing credit, economics, and exit mechanics. Biggest lesson learned: ambiguity causes way more friction than allowing flexibility ever does.
commentor profile
Reply by a searcher
from Westfälische Wilhelms in Düsseldorf, Deutschland
Hi Patrick, I can give a perspective on this. I connected with you on LInkedin.
commentor profile
+5 more replies.
Join the discussion