Move the Goalposts and Make Prospect Risk Aversion Your Friend

inquiries@edge-international.com

Move the Goalposts and Make Prospect Risk Aversion Your Friend
By Mike White

During a recent client call I sat in on, one of the partners mentioned an opportunity to begin doing work for a global 1000
business (“Company A”). My client happened to be one of the few non-law firms with which I work- a strategy consulting firm
that works with global corporates. My strategy consulting client had done a good job of setting the table and matching needs
with capabilities, but their dialogue was plateauing. The below bullets reflect how I helped them find a decision catalyst to
implement the relationship. One of the challenges was the perception that other strategy consulting firms competing against my
client were specifically familiar with Company A’s industry and products; i.e., they had the benefit of reusable knowledge. Below
are some comments I offered about how my client could “move the goalposts” and cause Company A to view retaining my
client as being a less risky choice.

Make “Risk Sensitivity” Your Friend
? A decision by Company A to work with any of the other more technically oriented consulting firms likely will be a hat tip to risk
aversion. Businesses derive comfort from reusable (technical) knowledge; reusable knowledge = no wheel spinning = less time
and $ to generate insights = higher probability ROI.

?How can you inject “risk” into Company A’s decision to go with cheaper consultants who bring with them reusable technical
knowledge?

? Reframe Company A’s problem from being a technical problem that is a creature of the relevant industry sector to being i) a
growth problem, ii) a change management problem, iii) a creativity problem, a iv) it is a . . . . problem, but it is not a technical
problem.

? High impact recommendations coming out of this process will require Company A to put in motion multiple work streams
that look little like their legacy business; this will be hard. They will need an expert in how to manage de novo, unfamiliar
work streams– i.e., the cadence, the carburetion, monitoring and course correcting, etc. A consultant who knows how to build
Company A’s technical product is not an expert in unfamiliar, de novo work streams. Getting organizations to do something
new for the first time is hard- and it is a discipline in and of itself. The real risk to Company A is in not finding a resource
with THIS expertise.

? Technical industry experts with presumed reusable knowledge are more likely to bring with them parochial, insular “me too”
prescriptions. How can you convince Company A that it is critical they make a real breakthrough here? That requires thinking
(i.e., creativity) unconstrained by the narrow lens of “technical literacy and deep industry knowledge.” Amazon did not go to a
retail consultant to go into the web services business, etc . . .

How to Deal with The Price Objection
? Company A is going to need to see what kind of prescription my client could author that is different in kind and capable of
generating geometrically more value than another conventional technically oriented consultancy. Can you paint this picture
during the sales stage before you have yet to do the work?

? Stories – the best way to move people in big ways to another place is with penetrating individual stories. Is there a case study
you could cite where you were chosen at a much higher cost and your client experienced home run impact that clearly would not
have been delivered by another “usual suspect” competitor?

Whether you’re a strategy consulting firm or a law firm, “difference in kind” persuasion requires big “goalpost moving”- you’re
going to need to get prospects to look at their problem and the opportunity fundamentally different from the way they are likely
looking at it when they present it to you. If you “move the goalposts” you win; if you allow them to lazily accept the framing they
brought with them before talking to consultants you likely won’t win.

Mike White was a practicing attorney for seven years prior to founding and operating two enterprise software companies — Sirius Systems (sold 1997) and
MarketingCentral (sold 2007). He owned and managed ClientQuest Consulting, LLC for 10 years serving law firms. He holds an AB in History from Duke
University and a JD from Emory University School of Law.

Leadership: Agility in the Face of Fragility
By Gerry Riskin

I was delighted to be asked to create an article on leadership for the Law Practice Management Magazine of the American Bar
Association.

My hands-on work with law firm clients has been very focused on the pandemic, remote working, and the need for extra special
consideration of members of firm teams due to the strains and stresses created by the pandemic environment.

Smart people tend naturally to focus on the “efficient and effective”, however sometimes there are other management
dimensions that need attention. This article explores the dimension of managing in light of pandemic-induced fragility in every
firm

I am grateful to the ABA and the Law Practice Management Magazine and hope that you and your firm will benefit from this
article.

Click to Download

Gerry Riskin specializes in counseling law firm leaders on issues relating to the evolution of the structure and management of
their law firms and the architecture of competitive strategies. He has served hundreds of law firm clients around the globe from
small boutiques to mega firms including working with the largest law firms in the world. Gerry is still a Canadian but has resided
on the Caribbean Island of Anguilla, British West Indies for more than 25 years.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns that you would like to discuss with me, I would be more than happy to explore
them with you. Email me at riskin@edge-international.com or text or call me at +1 (202) 957-6717

Resolving Conflict: Trouble at the Top and Why it’s sometimes best to
part company
By Jonathan Middleburgh

I have written previously (in an article in the Edge Communiqué entitled ‘Law Firm Armaggedon: How a major Law Firm nearly imploded and how the conflict was resolved’) about how the survival of law firms sometimes requires the capacity to resolve senior-level conflict. In that article I shared the story of one such conflict and how it was resolved through a long and difficult resolution process.

On that occasion conflict resolution achieved a truce between the key protagonists. In the situation described in this article the
outcome was a recognition on the part of one of the key protagonists that it was best for everyone if he leave the firm. While
ostensibly a less dramatic situation, in reality this outcome was important for the continued flourishing of the firm.

My Relevant Background

I described my relevant background in my earlier article.

I am an ex-barrister (I practised at the Bar in London for 12 years), schooled primarily in an adversarial approach to dispute
resolution.

Around fifteen years ago, I started to retrain as a psychologist, completing my undergraduate equivalency in psychology while
still practising at the Bar. After leaving the Bar, I continued my studies and started to practise as an occupational / organisational
psychologist. Over the years I have worked extensively in the field of senior-level talent development in law firms and corporate
legal departments, both in the UK where I live and also in the US and internationally.

As I explained in my earlier article, given the breadth of my background, I have been involved in a variety of projects, which defy
easy categorisation. Several of these projects have involved senior-level conflict resolution, which has become a significant
strand of my work.

A Case Study: Trouble at the Top

Unlike my earlier case study there was no cataclysmic precipitating incident that sparked my involvement with the law firm in
question. Rather I was brought in ostensibly to help the Management Committee of the law firm to work together more
effectively.

The background was that the law firm was a mid-sized regional firm in the UK. The firm had grown rapidly over the last 10
years, through a mixture of organic growth and as the result of a couple of large mergers.

The Managing Partner of the firm was half way through a second term of tenure, having been re-elected unanimously as
Managing Partner prior to his second term. He had been at the firm for over 20 years and was coming towards the end of a
very successful career as a transactional lawyer.

The other members of the Management Committee were the heads of the firm’s key departments – litigation, property,
corporate / commercial, banking & finance and private client – together with the firm’s finance director / COO.

My introduction to the firm was via a consultancy that had been helping the firm with the development of a new 5 year strategy
and the implementation of some key organisational and technological changes. The consultancy, in discussion with the firm’s
HR Director, had identified that it might be helpful for someone to do some team development work with the firm’s Management
Committee, as the Committee was not fully aligned on some key aspects of the proposed changes.

The HR Director felt that it would be helpful for the Management Committee to have a team charter and described this as the
core of the necessary work when I first met with her. I was unconvinced that this was really at the heart of the necessary work,
but decided to refrain from expressing this until I was clearer about what was actually going on.

What was clear from my initial briefing, however, was that all was not well at the top of this organisation. Although not presented
as of key concern in this initial briefing, it was clear that there was a degree of conflict between members of the Management
Committee. It was also clear to me that if the top team was unable to align it was highly unlikely that the planned changes would
be fully effective.

Choice of Process

The HR Director was convinced that the implementation of a ‘team charter’ would help ameliorate behaviour of Management
Committee members. I initially tried to question why a team charter would be a panacea but it was clear to me that the HR
Director was focused on the team charter and did not want to listen to other possible approaches to the situation.

Rather than continue to debate this issue with the HR Director I decided that the best approach was to agree that I would work
towards the Management Committee embracing a team charter. I suggested that I have a mix of conversations with the team
members combined with a series of workshops dealing with issues emerging from the conversations. I suggested that I speak
first to the Managing Partner and that I then have meetings with the other Management Committee members. I explained that I
felt that the Management Committee members might welcome some coaching and support in relation to their respective roles in
the change process, in addition to my providing support to the Management Committee as a team.

First round of meetings

I met first with the Managing Partner. He was very happy to engage with the process and acknowledged that the behaviour of
the Management Committee was holding back the change process. It emerged from the discussion that the Managing Partner
felt that the head of litigation was a particularly disruptive influence on the Management Committee. He was resistant to many of
the proposed changes, in particular to some of the proposed changes in technology and to more centralised resourcing.

According to the Managing Partner the head of litigation was undermining some of the work of the Management Committee and
the external consultants. He was apparently having ‘offline’ conversations with Management Committee members outside the
formal Management Committee meetings, seeking to persuade them to hold out against some of the recommendations or to
resile from changes that had already been discussed and agreed. The Managing Partner also suspected that he was ‘briefing’
against some of the proposed changes, i.e. telling his direct reports and possibly others that he was not in favour of the
changes.

I tried to ask the Managing Partner whether he had called out this behaviour and, if not, why not – but it was clear to me that the
Managing Partner was very uncomfortable discussing this and I was concerned that it would damage the relationship if I pushed
him too hard on this.

The meetings that I held with the other Management Committee members confirmed that the head of litigation was a disruptive
force on the Committee and highly resistant to the proposed changes. The other Committee members all mentioned that he
tended to dominate Committee meetings and that his contributions used up a disproportionate amount of the available airtime.
While it was clear that the Managing Partner was highly respected as a brilliant lawyer it was also clear that his leadership of the
Management Committee was lacking and that he was, in the view of several of the other Committee members, highly averse to
conflict and confrontation.

A couple of other factors emerged from these initial meetings. First, it was clear that although the larger of the firm’s mergers
had taken place several years previously it remained highly significant in terms of actual and perceived loyalties of the
Committee members. Several of the Committee members referenced the mergers and would refer to other members according
to whether they were ‘original’ or ‘legacy’ i.e. whether they had been with the ‘original’ firm or one of the legacy firms with
which the ‘original’ firm had merged.

It was clear to me that Committee members had retained their identities as either ‘original’ firm partners or ‘legacy’ firm
partners and that those identities remained determinative of how partners were viewed by each other. There remained a web of
alliance and commonality between the ‘original’ firm partners and a similar web of alliance and commonality between the
‘legacy’ firm partners. Each group was distrustful of the other group.

Second, it emerged that I needed to tread carefully in terms of my work with the Committee as a team. Several of the
Committee members referenced a previous disastrous engagement with an external consultant who had done some work with
the team, which had backfired badly. The consultant had held a kick off meeting without laying the groundwork by having
individual meetings with the team members. In the kick off meeting the consultant had done an exercise with the team where
he encouraged the team to imagine their fellow team members as common animals (badger, beaver, lion, tiger etc.) and to
explain why they identified which particular colleague with which particular animal, based on that animal’s behaviours and
attributes.

The exercise had derailed in a spectacular fashion. A couple of the team members chose to ‘zoomorphise’ their colleagues as
animals which those colleagues regarded as, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, highly offensive. Everyone maintained a
polite front during the meeting but there were post-meeting recriminations, the work with the consultant was abandoned, and the
exercise had clearly scarred team relationships for a while. There was an understandable desire to avoid anything that might be
a repeat of this disastrous experience.

I chose to meet the head of litigation towards the end of this first round of meetings. He was ostensibly extremely affable and
keen to emphasise that he thought the team development work was an excellent idea and that he welcome personal coaching.
However he was careful to extract several reassurances that our conversation was entirely confidential and spent a significant
part of the conversation critiquing the proposed changes, emphasising the critical nature of his role to the success of the firm
and explaining why, in his opinion, the litigation department was significantly different from the other departments such that his
department should be excepted from several of the changes, particularly with regard to centralised resourcing.

I had been forewarned as to two of the head of litigation’s key traits – a tendency to interrupt while being asked questions and a
propensity to keep on talking way beyond the scope of the question that had been asked.

The First Workshop

I decided to play it safe in the first workshop. I thought that it was important to build rapport with the team and to have a
relatively gentle workshop rather than trying to tackle anything too ambitious.

I gave the Management Committee some general feedback from the conversations that I had held with them. I fed back with
regard to the previous disastrous team development intervention and discussed with the team how that intervention had been
counterproductive and caused considerable friction within the team rather than improving team relationships. I also spent some
time discussing the fact that legacy relationships (i.e. relationships carried over from the ‘original’ firm and from the merger
firms) still seemed to affect the dynamics of the group and there was general agreement as to this and how there was still a
perception that some loyalty was owed to the legacy network of relationships.

We discussed in generic terms the key attributes of a high functioning team and the behaviours of such a team. These were
captured for later use in the team charter exercise. While everyone expressed a commitment to operating as a high functioning
team there was an acceptance that it would take time and effort to shift the embedded dynamics of the team.

My approach subsequent to the First Workshop

Following this first round of meetings and the first team workshop I reflected on the approach I should adopt moving forward.

I decided to focus on the following areas in the one to one coaching conversations:

     1. Legacy relationships – It was clear to me that the head of litigation was using the loyalty created by legacy
        relationships to undermine the work of the Management Committee as a whole. This was unfortunate as it seemed to
        me that the Management Committee – with the exception of the head of litigation – was broadly aligned around the
        importance of the proposed changes. So I decided, in my one to one coaching of the team members, to encourage
        them to focus on the importance of working together as one team and to seek out opportunities to work more
        collaboratively with those with whom they did not have legacy relationships. This could be as simple as having more
        regular catch ups with those individuals. I also encouraged the consultants driving the change process to ensure that the
        internal working groups driving the change were made up of a mix of players, so that the group members did not all
        share legacy relationships. It transpired that several of the key working groups had key members who had strong legacy
        relationships and these groups were gradually mixed up as a result of my recommendations.

2. Offline conversations – Much of the work of the Management Committee was being undermined by offline
        conversations seeded or coordinated by the head of litigation. I decided to focus on steering the team members away
        from having these conversations, particularly conversations whose purpose was to undermine the proposed changes or
        to revisit decisions that had already been made by the Committee. I thought that it was unlikely that the head of litigation
        would change his approach to a more positive one – and, assuming this supposition was correct, I believed that it was
        important that the other team members deprive him of the oxygen he was being given to fuel resistance to the changes.

     3. Stronger leadership – I thought it was important that the Managing Partner showed stronger leadership, calling out bad
        behaviour on the part of the head of litigation. I was not sure whether he would be prepared to do so given his aversion
        to confrontation. I felt that I needed to encourage him to do so.

Subsequent developments

I had further rounds of coaching conversations with each of the team members, each round being followed by a team workshop.
The bulk of each team workshop was consumed with the team discussing detailed aspects of the strategic change process (with
me observing this work) and a small but significant portion of each workshop was devoted to discussing the team’s
development.

I followed the approach outlined above with regard to the one to one coaching conversations, focusing on the areas outlined
above in addition to providing each individual with support in relation to their roles in the larger change process.

A number of things happened as a result of the approach I adopted:

     1. Within a couple of coaching sessions the team members – with the exception of the head of litigation – increasingly
        realised and articulated in conversation that their interests were aligned to those of the firm as a whole rather than those
        of the legacy organisations. They became careful to consider whether their decision-making was based on loyalty or
        affiliation because of legacy relationships – and also to avoid intuitively conferring with legacy colleagues when making
        decisions. Several of the team members were surprised at the extent to which they had previously been influenced
        unconsciously or intuitively by legacy colleagues, and less so by their ‘newer’ colleagues (even though these ‘newer’
        colleagues had been their colleagues for several years).

     2. The number of reported offline conversations declined, in particular conversations focused on reviewing or second-
        guessing decisions already made by the Management Committee. Specifically legacy colleagues of the head of litigation
        were careful to ensure that the head of litigation did not draw them into these conversations.

     3. Both legacy and non-legacy colleagues of the head of litigation became more likely respectfully to call out the head of
        litigation at their team meetings. Whereas the head of litigation had previously been allowed disproportionate airtime at
        these meetings, colleagues were more likely to ask him to make way for other contributions and to point out where he
        was being unjustifiably negative about aspects of the proposed changes.

It also important to note that the Managing Partner himself did not call out any of the head of litigation’s bad behaviour. When I
raised this with him he attributed it to wanting the team to take ownership of the situation rather than imposing a solution himself
– but I believed that the reality was that he was uncomfortable doing so, despite my efforts to encourage him to show clearer
leadership.

In any event, within a couple of coaching sessions with the head of litigation it was clear that he was starting to feel marginalised
as a result of the developments outlined above. He recognised that he was feeling increasingly isolated on the Management
Committee and I encouraged him to explore with me why that was the case and what was going on. I was able to give him
some of the feedback that the Managing Partner had not given him and to explain to him objectively and respectfully my
observations as to his communication style. To my surprise he took some of these observations on board and realised, at least
partly, that he was responsible for his own isolation.

Decision to part company

In subsequent conversations the head of litigation discussed with me whether he was capable of adapting his communication
style – and whether he wanted to do so.

He recognised that aspects of his communication style were entrenched but felt that he could modulate aspects of his style if he
wanted to do so. Indeed, he became notably more positive in a couple of team workshops and yielded the floor in those
meetings to his more constructive colleagues to an extent that was noticed by the other Management Committee members.

Ultimately, though, he decided that he did not want to accept the new status quo. The new status quo would see (from his
perspective) his leadership of his department sidelined in two key ways. He would have to agree that the technological changes
would apply as much to his department as to other departments. He would also have to agree to more centralised resourcing,
such that resources from the litigation team would be available to other departments depending on patterns of work flow.

For my part I encouraged him to think through the issues around his communication style – but as he edged towards the
decision to leave his role I did not try to persuade him to stay. My view was that the team would work together much more
effectively were he to leave.

I also helped him to think through the sort of environment that might play to his strengths. He decided (rightly in my view) that
this would be an environment where he could call the shots. After exploring a variety of options he accepted an in house role
heading a small team in a legal department that handled a heavy volume of litigation.

Outcome and Conclusions

As the work with the Management Team continued, the team charter itself receded in significance – as I had suspected it would
from the start. We put together and agreed a team charter but in reality the charter captured many of the behaviours that the
team had already started to exhibit. Those behaviours would not have developed without the coaching of team members and
the team workshops.

As indicated above, the head of litigation parted company with the organisation to take up another role. This provided the
opportunity to refresh the team and to bring in a new team member – the newly appointed head of litigation who possessed
qualities of communication and collaboration lacking in his predecessor.

Following the departure of the head of litigation the team started to work together more effectively and became increasingly
aligned with regard to the changes, most of which were implemented within a relatively short timeframe. The firm has continued
to grow, pulling ahead of some of its direct competitors.

By way of footnote the Managing Partner himself moved on within a year of my concluding the work with the team and the
‘new’ head of litigation was voted as his successor. I can in no way claim any credit for this development – but the change in
team dynamics enabled a new leader to step up and to replace a Managing Partner who himself had shown some clear
deficiencies in his own leadership style.

For me, the core work illustrated that it is sometimes better to recognise that a key relationship (in this case the relationship of
the head of litigation with his senior management colleagues) is not working – and therefore to part company – rather than to
assume that every dysfunction can be resolved or that it is worth the time and expenditure of organisational resource to try to do
so.

For further information or to discuss the issues in this article, please contact Jonathan Middleburgh at
Middleburgh@edge-international.com or on +44(0)7973 836343

Edge Principal Jonathan Middleburgh consults on senior human capital issues and coaches senior legal talent in both
law firms and legal departments. A former practicing lawyer who is also trained as an organisational psychologist,
Jonathan has a wide range of experience helping law firms and legal departments to develop their senior legal talent
so as to maximise business outcomes.

New Partner Development: Three Common Mistakes
By David Cruickshank

In the first two months of the year, your firm admitted a new class of partners. You’re confident that they are the “right stuff” for
the firm. They are productive, knowledgeable associates who can produce revenue at partner rates right away. But are they
ready to be owners? Unless your firm has a robust new partner development program, the answer is “We hope so” at the very
best.

There are three common mistakes we see in the formation of new partner training programs:

       Firms assume that a partner orientation program, held in the first quarter of the new partner year, will be sufficient;
       Firms believe that their compensation system provides all the right behavioral incentives for strong partner performance,
       so training can be very light;
       Where there is a new partner development program, the firm uses exclusively internal resources (e.g., a rainmaker, the
       CFO, practice group leaders).

These mistakes will lead to weaknesses in partner leadership, profitability and strategic vision. New partners are your future
and investment in them at this stage is critical. Let’s look at each mistake.

Orientation is Enough

The argument is that they were chosen to be partners because they have all the skills and qualities we expect. They have had
years of training and mentoring. Besides some orientation to billings, client management and a new tax filing status, what more
could they need? Years ago, when I recommended a new partner development program at an AmLaw 50 firm, the managing
partner said to me: “But they made partner at (elite firm name). That’s all we need to know.”

That view has been superseded by established partner development programs that last from a year (Baker Hostetler) to five
years (Skadden). The argument can be answered by asking the question that I put to firms who think that orientation is
enough. “Let me interview your partners who have been admitted for 1-3 years. I will ask them – What do you know now about
being an owner that you wish you had known in your first year?” The answers produce a long list of needs. For example, a
shocking number of young partners confess that they do not know how the compensation process and factors work in their firm.

From working with firms on partner leadership, operations and compensation, we know that a serious partner development
program has a significant curriculum and lasts a year or more.

The Compensation System Provides the Right Incentives

In a pure lockstep system, this may be true in the early years. Partners in that phase are producers and they manage the work
of firm clients. But most systems now have incentives for origination and firm contributions, such as mentoring associates. In
addition, compensation systems still tend to reward revenue, however produced. But as firms increasingly look for profitable
clients and matters, partners will have to be good at legal project management, team building and financial management with
clients. Many systems also give token recognition to the skills that partners will need beyond the first few years. Do you reward
things like complex litigation management, client relations kudos, the retention of valued associates, and collaboration across
practices?

From this brief critique alone, there are multiple needs for new partner training in:

       Mentoring Skills

Legal Project Management
       Team Leadership
       Understanding Profitability
       Cross-Selling in Business Development
       Client Relations
       Financial Management of matters with clients

This list could hardly be accomplished by the incentives in the compensation system or a week-long orientation program.

We’ll Use our In-house People

Yes, you’re right to bring in people with in-house experience. Perhaps the C.F.O. has a great presentation on profitability.
There may be a partner with project management skills. In business development, we find that the senior rainmaker may not be
the best example, because he or she spent years building a book of business. Look to the rising 5-to-7-year partner. Their
stories and practices may be more meaningful to a new partner.

Here’s the problem. Busy partners are not always the best teachers. They are teaching peers, not clients, so they may not
prepare well. They lean toward war stories, not a big picture framework. They are not even cost-effective for the firm. Outside
experts have honed interactive, law-firm specific courses in topics like Team Leadership, Legal Project Management and
Business Development. I regularly present a course on Delegation, Supervision and Feedback Skills for partners. Today’s
associates expect to be developed, be respected and get ongoing feedback. As a new owner, the partner now has to be on the
‘giving” side of that relationship.

Firms with robust partner development programs invest in outside resources. Some send partners to quality outside programs.
Others hire executive coaches for each partner for a period. There are international firms who bring new partner classes
together from the past 3-5 years for an annual academy of training and social interaction.

Finally, many new partners are unaware of the firm’s strategy, much less equipped to implement it. A well-constructed partner
development program builds strategy and vision into several components. For example, partners are equipped to explain
strategy to their teams and in mentoring individuals. An owner has to own strategy as well.

________________________

David Cruickshank is a Principal at Edge International. He assists firms with training, leadership, compensation matters and
partner development programs.

THE CHALLENGE OF COLLABORATION
By Leon Sacks

Clients are facing increasingly complex demands posed by the rapid advance of technologies, the economic and regulatory
environment, the geographic spread and dynamic change within their markets and disruptive events, such as the current
pandemic. Worse, many firms are less collaborative than they think they are.

The theme of three articles published over the last year1 was to address such client demands by taking a broader approach to
business management, adopting an “integration agenda” and cultivating a collaborative environment. As a culmination to this
theme, this article focuses on the challenge of generating internal collaboration.

It is a misnomer to think that collaboration is prevalent despite the fact than many lawyers, consultants and other professionals
will relate that they do collaborate with each other. According to BTI2 “50% of top legal decision makers see lack of collaboration
as their primary law firm’s biggest weakness – and is the primary reason they limit the work they give to these firms.”

Collaboration is clearly an underutilized asset. However, it is hard work because it requires bilateral effort and the benefits are
less tangible – there is no empirical way of measuring results as there is, for example, for sales or project management.
Furthermore, it is human nature to believe in oneself and avoid the risks of involving others.

The figure below summarizes what inhibits collaboration:

According to an Acritas survey3, the biggest barrier to collaboration according to lawyers was “no incentive” (23% of
responses). This inevitably reflects the fact that financial incentives are often geared to individual performance in generating and
delivering work or individual contributions to business and professional development. Even rewards that are based on group
results motivate a team to be productive but not necessarily collaborate with other teams.

Take the practice group leader of a large law firm, mentioned in one of my earlier articles, who explained that large multinational
clients of the group were not significant clients of other practice areas. The reason given was that the partners of the group were
focused on delivery in their own practice area – partially because that is what they were used to, but also because work volume
was the main determinant of compensation.

Protection of client relationships is not something professionals will willingly admit as an obstacle to collaboration but they do
perceive the introduction of others or the delegation to peers as a threat to the relationship they have with the client and their
livelihood. While partners of a firm will pay lip service to the notion that all clients are “our clients”, the “my client” attitude is still
present under the surface. This is not to say that they are selfish or badly intended; it is human nature to want to retain client
recognition and success.

Another motive for not collaborating is a perceived risk of service quality, whether it exists or not. Clearly if there is a true quality
issue it should be communicated and discussed as it will always prejudice collaboration.

However, I remember identifying an important client of one jurisdiction of a law firm that was about to acquire a business in
another jurisdiction and wondering why the client partner had not referred the opportunity to his counterpart in the other
jurisdiction. When I directly questioned the client partner, he tried to avoid the subject, but, on my insistence, almost
apologetically stated that he had doubts about the quality and caliber of the M&A team in that jurisdiction. I believe this was less
about quality and more about trust due to lack of familiarity with the way the M&A team worked.

In his book “Range – Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World”, David Epstein recognizes that specialization is
necessary and “facing kind problems, narrow specialization can be remarkably efficient.” He refers to more familiar problems in
more certain environments. However, breadth of experience is invaluable in an uncertain world with a myriad of diverse issues
and the only way to apply it is to collaborate with others – no one individual can tackle everything!

However, for those who prefer to focus on their specialist/technical capabilities or work autonomously, and feel that they are
successful as such, “forced interaction and coerced collegiality”4 is a discomfort. This feeling is exacerbated when time is a
scarce commodity, as it usually is, and collaboration is not considered practical.

Finally, consider a firm’s culture that has an overriding impact on the way people behave and interact. In the Acritas survey 22%
of respondents considered the lack of a firm culture to be the top barrier to collaboration. One can interpret this to mean that
firms do not have a clear identity or shared set of values that drive collective behavior or, alternatively, those have been defined
but the governance and management of the firm do not reinforce them.

Let’s be clear, collaboration can only be achieved if professionals are willing to work together but such willingness is not
enough. The organization needs to have the structure and put in place the motivating drivers to translate willingness into action.

Here are some tools to achieve collaboration:

The lack of a firm culture should be the first area of attention5. Establishing a common goal and adopting a one firm approach is
a prerequisite for generating internal collaboration; otherwise, the effectiveness of all other actions is diminished. This requires
effective communication so that people understand and see the benefits of collaboration and that they all participate in the
process. Interaction between people has to be nurtured and so the message will need to be reinforced on an ongoing basis.

In the current context, collaboration does not refer to the contributions of non-billable time to such activities as business and
client development, training professionals and firm administration, however positive and necessary they are. People need to
understand that transformative collaboration means combining knowledge and expertise to provide an optimal outcome or
solution for clients. But they have doubts:

       How do I identify the appropriate opportunities to join forces with others who have strengths that complement my own
       and what is the best approach?
       Who takes the initiative and will it be reciprocated?
       How do I avoid dilution of my portfolio?
       What is the impact on my performance and compensation?

Feedback and coaching at the individual level should be used to address these concerns and provide suggested approaches.
They provide responses at a more personal level and which people may not want to address at firmwide or group meetings and
trainings. It is through such conversations that professionals may be convinced that while collaboration can benefit many, it also
breeds individual success and that any perceived risks of introducing colleagues to clients or working with them is lower than the
risk of losing clients to the competition. Furthermore, professionals should be encouraged to be “first movers”; after all, it is
much easier to receive a favor if you first give one.

A strong tool for giving impetus to collaboration is the recognition of positive results. Success stories should be published and
communicated and, as Blanchard and Johnson put it “catch people doing something right” and let everyone know!

While financial incentive should not be the primary driver of behavior it certainly influences it as previously illustrated.
Acritas3 revealed that “Only 50% of lawyers say their firm includes collaboration in their compensation review. Yet, a full 70% of
lawyers say they want collaboration included in how their compensation is set. Clearly, the willingness to collaborate is present.”

Counting for collaboration in the compensation system therefore is a must and I would refer the reader to publications by my
Edge colleagues to obtain more ideas on evaluating and measuring collaboration6.

Once it has demonstrated the business case, cultivated a desire amongst professionals to work together and introduced
financial incentives, what further actions can a firm adopt to induce collaboration?

The key is to build familiarity amongst individuals creating as many opportunities as possible for interaction. One of David
Maister’s rules is that “groups don’t cooperate, people do.”7 His tenet is that it is the frequent interaction between individuals
within groups that breeds trust and cooperation and attempts to get groups to cooperate without such individual interaction is
doomed to failure.

Management should devise internal organizational strategies to facilitate positive interactions. These may include:

       the establishment of teams for the development of multidisciplinary or cross-jurisdictional solutions
       placing individuals in the same profit center or funded initiative so that they direct their efforts towards a common goal
       (e.g. industry groups, client development)
       investment in “cross fertilization” by rotating staff amongst groups and partners and exchange programs between
       offices and practices
       using training programs and firm meetings to reunite a diversity of individuals and allow them to exchange views and
       their collective experience

Evidently an organization requires high-level talent to deliver quality solutions and be competitive. However, the real power of an
organization is not in the “range” of each individual but rather in the ability to enable those individuals to work together and
allow their collective skills and experience to benefit the organization and its clients.

Invite your team to collaborate and persuade them to take the initiative. It is a learning process and there will be stumbles, but
persistence and belief in collaboration will result in happier clients, more business and more successful careers.

1
  Why taking a broad approach drives optimal performance (February.24, 2020)
Gain competitive advantage by implementing a broader approach (May 24, 2020)
Integration or disintegration, that is the question (October 28, 2020)
Published on the dates shown and accessible on Edge website (www.edge.ai)
2
  BTI’s Law Firms with the Best Collaboration 2017 (BTI Consulting)
3
  Thomson Reuters – Legal Executive Institute: article by Jen Dezso (VP Acritas US) including results of Acritas
survey on Stellar Performance 2019 of law firms
4
  “Think and Do” by Douglas Richardson, Edge International Review (April, 2012)
5
  “Edge “Cultural Assessment” is a proprietary tool that addresses the topic of culture (see www.edge.ai)
6
  Edge insights (see www.edge.ai) including articles on “Collaboration and Compensation (Parts 1 and 2)
published in May, 2019
7
  Managing the Professional Service Firm – David Maister

Leon Sacks is a trusted international executive noted for growing revenues and managing transformation projects for
professional service firms in the management consulting and legal industries. He is based in Miami and focused on the
Americas, has worked extensively in Latin America and is fluent in Portuguese and
Spanish. Contact: leon@edge-international.com

March 11, 2021 – Nick Jarrett-Kerr – “Dealing with the underperforming
or misbehaving partner” (Managing Partners’ Forum)
By Edge International

Online via Zoom
Thursday, March 11, 2021
12pm – 1pm (EST)

Register Here »

A NETWORK LEADERS CHECKLIST
By Yarman J Vachha

As the world changes and emerges from a generational crisis there is an increasing need to work together and form affiliations
as there is inevitably strength in numbers and diversity. I believe that we will see much consolidation in the legal markets in the
next few years. Those in existing Networks or Affiliations will be well served to review their arrangements and to take stock of
“what they want to be” in the new world.

I highlight below some thoughts which may act as a checklist for leaders of legal (or other professional services)
Networks/Affiliations.

Does the Network Have A Vision?
       Without a vision a Network is only a collection of members who are largely uncoordinated, inadequately organised,
       inadequately resourced and with no real purpose. In short, they are just a “loose affiliation” of individuals or firms with
       no articulated sense of purpose or direction.
       This may be acceptable to some Networks but realistically such bodies serve as simple referral platforms without any
       real commitment to or from their members. Frankly, this is not a sustainable platform for growth or quality offerings to
       clients.
       If the Network wishes to be more robust in its offering, the leadership (if any) needs, in conjunction with its members, to
       articulate a vision and to decide how closely linked the Network aspires to be. This is not about financial or operational
       integration (which may well come later) but creating a cohesive offering to the market.

The “Current Reality” Of The Network
       On the assumption that the Network decides to be more “connected”, the first objective is to establish is its “true” not
       its “perceived” status in the market. Often loose Networks have an inflated opinion of their reach, ability, quality, and
       visibility. What the Network needs is a “reality check”.
       In my opinion, this assessment is best served by an independent review of the existing workings, connectivity and
       market perception of the Network.
       As part of the independent review, it is imperative that a large cross-section of the membership is consulted. This has a
       dual effect: (i) members have a voice in the Network of the future; and (ii) the views are not a narrow representation of
       the Networks “current reality” which is often the view of Network leaders.
       Any independent review must include dialogue with clients that is served by the Network.
       An independent review will provide a sense of comfort to the members that there are no “agendas” that are being
       pushed by the leadership.
       Once a “starting point” has been established then only can a vision/purpose be articulated.
       This vision then needs to be “sold” to the members.

Selling the Vision and drinking the “Cool-Aid”
       The independent review and the implementation of the agreed resulting recommendations are the key to building the
       Network for the future.
       Adoption of the recommendations by a majority of members are a must. This is a slow and involved process of “story
       telling” so that the members “buy-in” to the future vision of the Network.
       The one key question that members will inevitably ask is “What’s in it for me”? The response will very much depend
       on the current status and the future vision of the Network and what it is trying to achieve.
       In my experience, there will, inevitably, be a sub-set that buy into the vision immediately without much convincing, there
       will be a group “on the fence” and there will be a group that will “dig their heels in” and refuse to change.

The key is to focus on those “on the fence” and convince them that adoption of the recommendations is for the greater
       good of the Network and will pay dividends to all members in the future
       Do not expend too much energy on those who are not willing to change as these members signify a lack of buy-in to the
       vision. Such members are unlikely to contribute and possibly not the right Network partners for the future.

The Implementation Phase

Once there is general buy-in from the members the next step is to formulate an implementation plan to roll out the
recommendations.

In my opinion, there are five main elements in achieving the goals that have been identified:

       A laser like focus to achieve the agreed goals
       A client-centric focus
       Good and transparent governance
       An adequate and sensible budget and resources
       Regular updates with accountability

All of the above are facilitated by having a number of relevant Work Streams (and inevitably sub-work streams) driving the
various facets in the implementation of the recommendations. The work streams should be headed by relevant experts who are
accountable to a central authority overseeing the overall reforms that are being implemented.

The End Game

The end game does not exist!

All businesses are “a journey not a destination” this is no different for a Network. The main question the Network needs to
decide upon is how close it wants its affiliation to be. In my experience this will evolve over time and the Network will reassess
itself periodically.

Remember that almost all of the established major professional services networks out there have evolved over time rather than
through some revolutionary event.

Being bold and taking the first step requires a “leap of faith” and some investment but it will surely pay dividends in the long
run.

Edge Principal Yarman Vachha is based in Singapore with four decades of experience in the professional services
industry globally. He has run global legal business across Asia, Australia and the Middle East. He is a subject matter
expert in improving profitability, operations, remuneration structures and governance within law firms.

TRAINING & SKILL-BUILDING – CREATING A CULTURE OF
KNOWLEDGE-SHARING
By Bithika Anand

Training, development and skill-building are concepts that have largely been under-rated in law firms. The debate often is –
whether they are a cost or an investment? The dilemma also stems from the uncertainty concerning the return on investment
and how to scientifically measure the value addition from training and development activities. This article aims to discuss the
benefits associated with skill-building and how can law firms foster a culture of knowledge-sharing, mentoring and growth.

Is it worth the time, effort and money?

One of the primary issues that firms cite for underinvesting in training is attrition. The possible movement of lawyers from one
firm to another is the cause of hesitation in initiating skill-building initiatives. The question that often emerges while deciding
whether or not to initiate a training & development programme is – “Will the lawyers take the benefit of training and join the
competitors for better pay-package?” However, this clearly under weighs the high productivity, efficiency, responsiveness and
quality that lawyers achieve when imparted with right skill-set. The untrained and unaspiring lawyers would want to stay with the
firm as long as they can. It is often the aspirational ones that are the most mobile. Training can serve a brilliant retention tool for
those who are sharp and growth-oriented.

Law firms need to consider training to be an important component of ‘cost of doing business’. Also, training creates skill sets,
rather than focussing on leveraging the existing skill sets. This becomes a huge distinguishing factor as most of the law firms
hire from a similar talent pool. Their ‘competitive edge’ emerges from not just hiring the best lawyers from the available pool;
but spending time, effort and money to groom their lawyers into becoming a wholesome professional.

Technical Training or Skill-Building?

Law firms also face a tough choice in selecting a training programme. While some firms conduct active surveys to identify areas
where their lawyers feel they need hand-holding, others develop their programmes with diverse emphasis based on
demography, practice areas and sectors services by the firm. The most popular training programmes involve training the
lawyers on technical legal aspects, as these programmes upgrade their knowledge of law and familiarize them with practical
aspects of application of law to real life issues.

Other programmes focus more on skill-building. Several firms are cognizant of the fact that a knowledgeable lawyer will always
have a good head start, but as they grow up the ladder, they don several hats – of being a counsellor, mentor, rainmaker,
decision-maker and a manager. While most of these skills are acquired ‘on the job’ organically, training can be of immense
value in building these skills.

Another significant area, for those who practice law in providing services to businesses and industry sectors, is in the
commercial-legal domain. These training programmes involve training the lawyers about business issues and practice nuances
that are specific to the industry sector they cater to. These programmes are organized on the fundamental premise that ‘law is
an applied science’. A lawyer with only core technical knowledge, but limited business knowledge, may not do justice in working
with clients. These commercial-legal training programmes are aimed to add value to their client-servicing and help lawyers in
understanding of commercial issues, especially those pertaining to clients’ industry sectors.

Fostering a Training & Development Culture

Firms can create a culture of training & development by having their senior leadership members (say, Partners or Senior
Partners) commence training and knowledge-sharing sessions on real and practical issues. This could be something as basic as
a debriefing after every litigation matter is concluded or after every major transaction is closed. This also serves as a great pre-

cursor to starting a full-fledged training programme. A culture of knowledge-sharing proves to be the catalyst in changing the
attitude of lawyers towards training. When firm’s own leadership invests time in sharing their learnings and key takeaways, the
growth is organic and relatable. While domain experts and subject matter specialists from outside add a new dimension to the
training programmes, internal training and skill-building often the first step in creating an environment of receptiveness.

Benefits of Training & Skill-Building

The most tangible outcome of training and skill-building is the enhanced quality of work product. This also results in increased
trust in delegating work to trained resources. When seniors delegate work with trust and confidence, not only does it result in
reduced stress, but also creates a symbiotic relationship between the seniors and juniors where the juniors respond with
enthusiasm and high morale. A law firm that is recognized for investing in training its lawyers often enjoys a reputational edge.
Such firms witness the best of the best lawyers applying to work with them, thereby resulting in enhanced quality of new
recruits. Clients are also more receptive of engaging with skilled lawyers and if the juniors in the firm are trained well, the
benefits of such engagement results in higher leverage and better profitability on client mandates.

Creating Responsibility

Law firms that actively take part in creating a culture of knowledge sharing give due emphasis on organic mentoring and skill-
building. Senior lawyers in such firms often play the role of a coach and mentor; and helping their team members learn and grow
doesn’t feature low on their priority lists. In fact, they take up engagement with their teams as one of the key responsibility
areas; and tasks like delegation, supervision and feedback become a part of performance evaluation at the senior level. They
allow their junior team members several opportunities to work with them and observe them in court and client meetings. Such
firms have in-built performance reward mechanisms that encourage, recognise and reward effective delegation. Certain firms
actively contribute to making their environment conducive to training and development by encouraging their lawyers to continue
making themselves valuable in terms of market standing and venturing into newer areas of practice.

Summing Up

Firms that invest in building and creating skills in their lawyers gain competitive advantage that comes from the ability to develop
the resources. Training and skill-building need to reflect in firms’ value system. Traditionally, good execution, rainmaking and
client retention are the parameters that are usually reflective of a lawyer’s success in the law firm model. However, with
changing times, performance on mentoring and coaching the team is not the most negligible and side-lined parameter. Firms
desirous of all-inclusive implementation of a training programmes follow a top-down approach; setting the two-fold expectations
at the senior level crystal clear. First being the training for personal growth of the senior leadership, where they are trained to not
just build a volume of work, but also the diversity of work and its quality. They are trained to transition towards high-end and
qualitative work, while supervising the work of the junior lawyers in the team. The second aspect is their involvement in training
their juniors. Firms’ evaluation systems must ensure that senior leaders do not constantly excuse themselves from conducting
sessions or being a part of training initiatives arranged for the junior lawyers.

To sum up, the cost associated with not training lawyers will outweigh the costs of training lawyers and building an engaged
team. For the lawyers who stay with you, and lots will if you have an environment that fosters training and skill-building, the
benefits will outnumber the risks of breeding a team that may grow complacent.

Bithika Anand is a Principal with EDGE International, advising on India specific growth and business initiatives. She is also an
Honorary Consultant to the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), where she works with the organization and its members advising
and assisting in complying with best industry practices. A chartered accountant by profession, she also holds a Post-Graduate
Diploma in the Management of Legal Practice from Nottingham Trent University.

20 insights you need to run a law firm in the 2020s
By Chris Bull