There is a sentence that gets said, eventually, in every peer team an MSP owner walks into. It almost always sounds like a statement of fact. "I'm comfortable. Why would I blow that up?" The first time you hear it, it sounds confident. The fifth time you hear it, you start to notice that the room goes quiet — not because anyone disagrees, but because no one is sure how to argue with it. The discomfort isn't in the answer; it's in the question. The question presumes that comfort is a destination. Inside the operational realities of running a managed services business, comfort is closer to a season — and seasons end. For a fuller picture of why the ceiling tends to hold longer than the comfort does, see why MSPs get stuck at $2M and what actually breaks the ceiling, and for the prior conversation about goal-setting beneath the revenue number, defining direction beyond revenue.
What follows is not an argument for growth. It is an argument for decision. An MSP owner who deliberately chooses a stable $2.1M is in a fundamentally different position than one who is "happy at $2M" because no one made them decide otherwise. The first is a strategy. The second is a posture. Every season of comfort eventually meets an external event — a long-tenured technician walking out the door with two of your top accounts, an insurance renewal that swallows the margin you forgot to defend, an inflation cycle that pushes payroll costs up faster than your contract escalators, a single anchor client deciding to in-source. None of those events care whether you've decided what you want. They simply arrive, and the owner who has not committed to a financial direction tends to react with the same defensive posture they had on a calm Tuesday — which is to say, no posture at all. This piece is for the owner who has been telling themselves things are fine. The point isn't to scare you out of comfort. The point is to make you spend a deliberate hour deciding whether comfort is your destination, your season, or your default.
The plateau most MSP owners describe as "stability" is a real phenomenon. It is also a temporary one. Businesses tend to move through a recognizable pattern — an early grind, a brief plateau, and then a valley that arrives from the outside. The valley does not announce itself. It shows up in payroll inflation, in a long-tenured technician resigning, in a cyber insurance renewal, in a flagship account moving its IT in-house. The mistake is not enjoying the plateau. The mistake is treating it as the new ground floor. The strategic question is not whether you should chase $3M. The strategic question is whether the plateau you are currently standing on is one you have actively chosen to defend, or one you happened to land on and decided to call good enough.
The most underestimated force in a managed services business is the simple arithmetic of staying still. Wages rise. Contract escalators do not always keep pace. A senior technician quietly leaves with two clients, and you discover the attrition wasn't 5–7% — it was 9% in a quarter. The reported inflation number tells you 2–3%. The cost of the people, the parts, the licenses, and the fuel tells you something closer to 7–10%. Sitting still costs money in a way most owners do not feel in real time. They feel it the year after — when net margin compresses, when the bonus pool tightens, when the bank conversation gets harder. The "comfortable" $2M is rarely the same $2M two years later. It is the same revenue number with quieter profit on the other side of it. Understanding that arithmetic is the prerequisite to any honest conversation about whether to grow, hold, or sell.
The most common failure mode is not under-spending or over-spending — it is spending against a goal the owner cannot defend out loud. The owner who says "$3M" because $3M is the next round number after $2M will, predictably, eject from the strategy at the first sign of friction. Two payroll cycles of marketing spend, no closed deals, and the plan disappears. The replacement plan is more comfort. The discipline is not in setting the highest possible target. The discipline is in setting a target you can stand behind when things are hard. If the date, the dollar figure, and the "why" do not produce an emotional reaction — pride, fear, urgency, anything — then there is no goal. There is a number. Numbers without emotion will not survive a slow quarter. For more on the difference between an ambition and a plan, see goals aren't dreams — they're math.
The most strategically aligned move for some owners is to deliberately defend $2M. Calibrate the sales and marketing spend to beat attrition. Tighten the agreement gross profit. Discipline the time entry. Restore the financial leverage. That is a real strategy — and it is dramatically different from drifting at $2M while pretending to chase $3M. The most expensive owner in the industry is the one running a half-funded growth motion against a goal they don't actually want, while the underlying margins erode. The decision matrix is simple, even if the decision itself is hard. Either commit to a goal big enough to produce emotion and fund it accordingly, or commit to defense and stop spending money on theater. The middle position — the half-strategy — is where most of the regret lives.
For the owners who refuse to talk about exit, succession, or any future state outside of "I love this business," the conversation reframes well. It is not about selling. It is about optionality. The dad with two sons in the business who wants to leave a 25-year legacy still needs a plan that lets him step out of the day-to-day at 65, at 70, at whatever year his family decides. The owner who can't imagine retiring still benefits from a business that doesn't depend on his presence to function. The owners who refuse to engage with the question are not avoiding selling. They are avoiding deciding. Optionality is the version of the conversation that works for everyone — the owner who wants to sell, the owner who wants to pass the business down, the owner who genuinely wants to be in the chair at 70. All three need the same financial discipline, the same operational maturity, and the same clarity of intent. The avoidance reflex is the only thing standing between most owners and a business that gives them choices.
The $2M ceiling is less a revenue threshold and more an operational and decision-making threshold. Most owners reach it on the strength of relationships, word of mouth, and personal effort. Breaking through requires a different kind of discipline — structured sales, dedicated leadership, financial reporting an owner can act on — and most owners reach the plateau before they have built any of that. The plateau, in other words, is what an under-invested operating model looks like at its natural limit.
Yes — when the decision is made deliberately, with a funded plan to defend the margin and beat attrition, and with an explicit understanding that the comfort is a defended position and not a default. Defending a smaller business well is harder than most owners realize and requires the same financial discipline as growth. The trap is not the $2M number. The trap is "happening" to be at $2M and calling it a strategy.
Faster than most owners expect. Wage inflation alone — particularly in technical roles — has run well above headline CPI for most of the last several years. Add 5–9% attrition, a softer agreement gross profit, and a single anchor account that walks, and an owner can move from a healthy 17% EBITDA to a struggling 8% in 18–24 months without making a single bad decision. The erosion is rarely a moment. It is a slope.
Three elements. A specific number. A specific date. And a reason that produces an emotional response when the owner says it out loud. A goal without emotion is a target that will be abandoned at the first sign of hard friction. The "why" is what survives the slow quarter. Without it, the spend stops, the plan collapses, and the comfort returns — with less margin than before.
You do not need an exit strategy. You need an optionality strategy. The financial discipline, operational maturity, and leadership delegation that make a business sellable are the same disciplines that make a business survivable when the owner is sick, on sabbatical, or simply tired. Optionality is not about leaving. It is about not being trapped.
When the goal you are spending against is one you cannot get emotional about. Half-funded growth against an unowned goal is the single most common waste of capital in the industry. The discipline is to either fund the goal at the level required to hit it — typically around 10% of revenue for healthy growth — or to redirect the spend toward defense, profit, and operational leverage.
Gary Boyle is a Partner for Strategy & Business Development at Bering McKinley. With a background spanning network engineering, entrepreneurship, and strategic consulting, Gary brings real-world operator experience to helping MSP owners build stronger, more profitable businesses. He is a recurring co-host on The BMK Vision Podcast's Roundtable format, where he pressure-tests the leadership, financial, and operational decisions that determine whether an MSP grows, holds, or stalls.
Connect with Gary on LinkedIn →
Josh Peterson is the CEO of Bering McKinley and host of The BMK Vision Podcast. Since 2004, Josh has worked with hundreds of MSP owners to build operationally sound, profitable businesses through consulting, peer teams, and direct coaching.
Connect with Josh Peterson on LinkedIn →
If you are sitting at the plateau and quietly suspect that "comfortable" is hiding something — that is the place where the Vision Operating System does its most useful work. Decide what you want, name it out loud, and build the financial and operational discipline to either grow there or defend there. The choice is yours. The drift is what costs you.