To merge or not to merge? That is the question

The real question is not whether partnerships are good or bad, but whether they serve the organisation’s mission and its residents. Boards must confront ego, tradition and risk appetite as much as spreadsheets and efficiencies.

These six questions can help guide the debate.

1. Are we joining this partnership because it makes us stronger, or because we’re worried about being left on the shelf?

Partnership discussions often begin from a place of anxiety. A neighbouring association has merged; the regulator hints that consolidation is “expected”; another board has already announced bold plans. It is easy to feel left behind.

But joining a partnership out of fear or peer pressure risks poor alignment. Boards must ask: what is the strategic case for collaboration? Does it give us access to new capabilities, greater resilience or better outcomes for tenants? Or are we simply reacting to the wider mood in the sector?

Executive teams should be expected to demonstrate how any proposed alliance will tangibly improve services, reduce risk or strengthen long-term sustainability. Equally, boards should test their own motives: is this about strategy, or is it about ego and keeping up appearances?

2. What realistic options are there for full-scale mergers?

Mergers dominate headlines, but they are not the only path to collaboration. Boards should probe the full spectrum: shared services, joint ventures, co-investment in development or time-limited partnerships around specific challenges such as sustainability or digital innovation.

Each model offers a different balance of efficiency and independence. Shared procurement may cut costs without undermining autonomy. Joint ventures can spread risk and enable sharing of expertise and resources while retaining the parties’ individual identities. By contrast, full-scale mergers create the possibility of major transformation but also significant cultural and governance disruption.

Experience has shown that full integration following a merger can take at least two years to achieve. Boards should ask executives to map the options clearly with pros and cons, and test them against mission and risk appetite. The right question is not simply “Should we merge?” but “What form of collaboration, if any, best serves our strategy?”

3. What is our risk appetite, and how does partnership test it?

Partnerships redistribute risk as well as resources. Mergers can create stronger balance sheets but also expose organisations to integration risk, regulatory complexity and cultural clashes.

Boards must be explicit about their tolerance for such risks. Are members comfortable trading independence for scale? How would they respond if a partner association’s financial or reputational difficulties spilled over?

Conversely, are there risks that might arise from not collaborating? Might your board be too small to withstand shocks or lose access to future funding? A candid discussion of risk appetite is essential. Without it, boards may stumble into partnerships that are safe in theory but destabilising in practice.

4. How do cultural identity and governance shape this decision?

Numbers can make a merger look attractive, but culture often determines success or failure. Boards should ask about the compatibility of their values, leadership styles and ways of working with any potential partners.

An association losing its individual identity can undermine trust and morale. At the same time, clinging to tradition can hamper or prevent change.

Boards should explore how partnerships would affect decision-making, service standards and organisational values. What aspects of mission and culture are non-negotiable? How would governance structures protect these elements? How will disagreements between the partners be arbitrated?

Cultural considerations should come to the surface early, not as an afterthought. Governance structures, leadership roles and tenant voices must be part of the evaluation, as well as financial spreadsheets.

5. How do we ensure partnerships serve our tenants?

At their best, partnerships deliver improved services, better homes and greater resilience for residents. At their worst, they serve organisational ego, chasing scale without delivering meaningful benefits.

Boards must hold executives accountable for articulating the tenant perspective. How will this partnership improve affordability, safety or service quality? What guarantees exist to preserve accountability to residents? How will local voices be protected within larger entities?

If the case for partnership cannot be explained clearly from a tenant perspective, then its legitimacy is weak. Boards should make tenant outcomes the ultimate measure of value.

6. What does independence enable us to achieve that partnership cannot?

Maintaining independence is not a neutral option, it is a strategic choice. Boards should explore the advantages: agility in decision-making, responsiveness to local issues, stronger cultural identity and unambiguous accountability.

But independence also comes with costs: limited economies of scale and development footprints, smaller risk buffers and fewer opportunities for innovation. The question is not whether independence is “good” or “bad”, but whether it enables the organisation to deliver its mission more effectively than partnership would.

Boards should require executives to present a clear-eyed assessment of what independence is really worth – and what it foregoes. Only then can retaining independence be a conscious decision rather than a default option.

There are other supplementary, though important, questions to consider. What would be the realistic assessment of the costs and complexity of the partnership? How would it affect decision-making? What if, ultimately, the partnership doesn’t work out?

These logistical questions should be treated as such, and should not supersede or become confused in the board’s deliberations about the six questions of principle listed above. Boards can easily talk themselves out of a genuine partnership opportunity by listing too many criteria or hurdles to be jumped instead of dealing with them as matters to be resolved by the partners as part of the process.

Boards that wish to move from debate to decision can then take three practical steps.

First, conduct a strategic partnership audit. What are the organisation’s core competencies? Where are the performance gaps? What challenges could partnership address that internal development cannot? This analysis should include honest assessment of the organisation’s attractiveness as a partner and its capacity to manage collaborative relationships effectively.

Second, map the partnership landscape systematically. Rather than responding to individual partnership opportunities reactively, boards should map the full range of collaboration options available.

This includes identifying potential partners, understanding different partnership models and assessing the trade-offs between control and capability for each option. This strategic mapping enables proactive partnership choices rather than reactive responses to external pressure.

Third, establish partnership criteria and governance. Boards should establish clear criteria for evaluating partnership opportunities before specific proposals arise.

What would make a partnership attractive? What would make it unacceptable? What governance processes would apply to partnership decisions? And most important of all, how does the decision align with residents’ interests? Having these frameworks in place prevents rushed decisions and ensures consistent evaluation of opportunities.

Partnerships are neither a panacea nor a threat in themselves. They are strategic tools whose value depends on context, culture and clarity of purpose. Boards that fail to interrogate their motives risk drifting into alliances that compromise their mission. Boards that cling to independence without questioning its sustainability risk isolation.

Good governance is about asking the right questions, testing assumptions honestly and making deliberate choices that balance resilience with identity. In today’s environment, whether to collaborate or go it alone will depend on these behaviours.

David Levenson, founder, Coaching Futures