This is really a very difficult question to answer. Really difficult. Most businesses, I think, would be best served by focusing on just one business. It is difficult enough to run one business much less multiple. The company I once worked for had at one time 3 major businesses and 15 minor businesses. The minor businesses for the most part all lost money--at least 1/2 of them. They were eventually closed or sold. All 15. Management was either unable or unwilling to invest the money in those minor businesses to make them really profitable and besides that they did not command enough revenue to worry about. The company is now down 3 businesses but they might be having 2nd thoughts about 1 of them. Nevertheless, some companies are able to manage and grown multiple businesses. MMM is such a company. They seem to do it well. At one time back in the 60s and 70s conglomerates were all the rage. Almost without exception they have all ceased to exist. Back in the 20s there were holding companies. They for the most part all collapsed during the depression. There is an old adage. The bigger they are the harder they fall . It applies to companies very aptly. If it were not for the government s free money the biggest bank in the U S would now be history. The biggest insurance company would also be history. The biggest mortgage lenders would be history. The biggest automotive company would be history. Part of all of these companies problems were that they were too big to manage maybe. Another possibility is that management was managing them as their personal piggy bank.You are rather cute.
That is way too broad to be answered in a meaningful way. What type of firm? Located where? What skills do the members of the firm have (for example, someone with only trial skills will make a poor tax attorney without a lot of training). Every answer can change depending on those variables and probably many more.
