A blog by Joel Barolsky of Barolsky Advisors

Posts Tagged ‘#leadership’

Where was Minters’ chairman during the Kimmitt crisis?

In Articles, Commentary on 26 March 2021 at 7:28 pm

The full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 26 March 2021

“The Minter’s chairman went missing in action. One of the most important jobs of a chair is to resolve major disputes within the partnership without it spilling out to the rest of the firm, and even worse, into client land.”

This quote reflects a sentiment expressed by many law firm leaders I spoke to about the recent saga at MinterEllison.

While I’m not privy to the internal machinations at Minters to say whether this is a fair judgement or not about the firm’s chairman, David O’Brien, it does raise the question as to what should be expected of a chair?

 In my view, the answer lies in the confluence of governance, guidance, and glue.

Governance

The chair of partners usually has an active leadership role in firm governance. As such, his or her job is to ensure that management’s direction is broadly aligned with the interests of equity partners and other stakeholders.

Unlike company structures, partnership governance roles and responsibilities are not stipulated in any statute and are largely ambiguous. All partners are assumed take on all responsibilities concurrently. In this context, the chair and managing partner are expected to carve out a tailored governance framework that balances stewardship, operational efficiency, risk-taking, control, transparency, partner autonomy and accountability.

The chair of partners would usually be expected to facilitate the effective functioning of board and partner meetings, ensure accurate timely and relevant information flow, oversee risk and compliance, manage board composition, and lead the process of reviewing the managing partner’s performance and succession.

In some firms, the chair is actively involved in deciding profit allocation and progression. In other firms, their role is more of an independent arbiter in profit allocation appeals. 

Guidance

While most medium and large firms have adopted a more ‘corporate’ governance model, partners as owner-operators still often want a say when it comes to critical decisions around firm purpose, values, capital allocation and broad strategic direction.

The chair plays a critical role in helping the firm’s executives navigate this decision-making minefield.

Their guidance is critical in deciding which fights to pick, what options are on or off the table, what’s the best approach and forum to raise issues, and where power really lies in and around the partnership.

Chairs often act as cultural barometers – forecasting the mood, energy, and tone of the partnership. Their predictions of an imminent storm, or conversely, a period of calm and confidence can be hugely beneficial.

At a more micro level, firm chairs often act as a sounding board or mentor for the managing partner. In this role, they help talk through tricky issues, provide honest feedback, and offer comfort when exasperation overwhelms.

This mentoring role is particularly important for the induction of new managing partners or an external appointment. In the latter case, the chair needs to lend some of their social capital until the new leader’s position is firmly established. 

Glue

The third role of the chair is to foster partnership cohesion and stability. This doesn’t mean leading the firm cheer squad, but rather putting out spot fires and addressing corrosive politicking.

Spot fires may include a major fallout between two senior partners or where an individual partner has displayed behaviour incongruent with the firm’s values or there is a case of systemic underperformance.

It is quite common for the chair to join the managing partner in having a fireside chat with these problem partners. The chair helps create a sense of deep collective concern. This threat is hoped to be the catalyst necessary to change aberrant behaviour.

Pie-splitting is often a source of ‘corrosive politicking’. For example, in meritocracies choosing a side when there’s a commercial or legal conflict could result in a major differential in individual earnings. In these instances, the chair may get involved in dialling-down the emotions and ensuring that trust in the model is maintained.

Coming back to the MinterEllison situation, I don’t have any first-hand information as to assess whether the firm’s chair did an effective job in governing, guiding, and gluing? As with so many tricky issues in law firm partnerships, that’s ultimately for Mr O’Brien’s partners to decide.

How law firms can avoid 2021 burnout

In Articles, Commentary on 5 February 2021 at 3:51 pm

The full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 4 February 2021.

‘Exhausted.’

That’s how many managing partners described their firm in the last quarter of 2020. The reasons given for this sense of collective fatigue ranged from heavy workloads, endless screen time, social disconnection and pandemic-induced stresses. 

A key 2021 objective in many law firms is to build business resilience and to avoid burnout. Resilient organisations can ride out uncertainty instead of being overpowered by it.

The sense of exhaustion is mostly an indicator of sustained depleted energy. To cope better, firms must get better at understanding and managing energy levels.

Many law firms are rushing toward a flexible hybrid workforce with people working two or three days from home. While this makes sense, a potential trap is having a binary view that that sees work at the office as an energy drainer and home life an energy restorer. The opposite may also be true – activities at home like juggling parenting and family duties may deplete energy, where work-based tasks such as solving a complex client problem may be energising.

Related to this idea, the commute to and from work could be viewed as a restorative activity. If this time is merely replaced with demanding home or client work, the energy bank account stays overdrawn.

Taking a holistic view, working in a hybrid model might be wonderful for a few, but a net energy drain for many. If this is the case in your firm, then you’re on the road (again) to exhaustion.

There are two practical steps that law firms can take to manage energy levels better.

#1 Track the ebb and flow

‘What gets measured gets managed’, is an oft-cited quote from leadership guru Peter Drucker.

 Following his advice, law firms would benefit from developing better indicators or sensors around energy levels. This might range from a few scripted queries in regular staff check-ins to new questions in employee engagement and pulse surveys.

Tel Aviv-based McKinsey partner Gila Vadnai-Tolub defines four types of energy worth measuring: physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.

  • Physical energy defines how tired we feel and how well we feel in our bodies.
  • Mental energy is what we get from analytical and thinking tasks. Long periods of focused concentration are often mentally tiring. We each have mental tasks that seem to drain us or lift us.  
  • Emotional energy derives from connecting with others—from giving and receiving appreciation, or helping a friend or colleague discuss their troubles. In turn, negative emotions such as fear, frustration or anger drain energy and cripple performance. 
  • Spiritual energy is what we get from doing something meaningful to us, something that speaks to our inner core or sense of purpose. We each have experienced working hard and becoming physically and mentally tired, but somehow, we gain the energy to continue because it has fundamental meaning. 

Tracking energy levels over time can help to identify the ‘normal’ range within which energy ebbs and flows in your firm. It can signal the period just before people start running on empty.

Tracking also enables individuals to learn something of their own natural energy rhythms learning to readjust before fatigue sets in. 

#2 Build in replenishment

Elite athletes alternate between high-energy periods of performing and training with resourcing and recovery activities.

Time off on weekends, public holidays and annual leave is often as far as some law firms go in helping their people re-energise.

In recent years, many firms have expanded their health and wellness programs to address this issue. Things like paid gym memberships, cycling clubs, yoga, pilates, guided meditation classes, counselling and nutrition education are becoming more common. The biggest challenge is often to encourage those who are most in need to take advantage of the support that’s offered. 

With the rollout of the hybrid operating model, I suggest firms will need to redouble their efforts to find workable solutions. This will most likely involve conversations with each person to fully understand how they expend and restore energy over a typical day, week, month, and year. Together a tailored program can be developed to keep people productive, energised and, most importantly, resilient.

Partners or owners: the law firm divide

In Articles, Commentary on 14 December 2020 at 9:40 am

The full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 11 December 2020.

One of the most striking statistics from The Australian Financial Review Law Partnership Survey is the wide variation in the ratio of equity to non-equity partners across Australia’s top 50 law firms.

In some firms, like Colin Biggers & Paisley and McCabe Curwood, only 20 per cent of partners have an equity stake.

At the other end of the spectrum, nine firms report that 100 per cent of their partners have equity. However, partners in these firms are often not on an equal footing. Newly minted partners in these firms can earn as little as 25 per cent of a full share. In other firms, individual partner earnings are based more on an assessment of their annual contribution instead of the level of their shareholding.

Further analysis of the survey data suggests there is no discernible factor that determines the equity ratio. Variations can occur within and across tiers, service range and practice area.

The role of non-equity partner was first introduced as a form of trial period to assess whether a candidate should be made an equity partner. The “partner” title would allow the candidate to command the respect of clients, peers and staff necessary to build a successful practice and prove their worth. Being extra cautious in the final step to equity was prudent given the complexities in dealing with bad choices or established equity partners leaving.

In a similar vein, firms used the non-equity partner role as an entry point for new lateral hires on their way to equity partnership.

Over the past decade, the non-equity partner role has evolved into a de facto career position in some firms with the candidate having little chance of being offered an equity stake.

A large non-equity partner cohort can improve profitability – by lifting leverage and average billing rates – help share some risks and distribute the management load.

Challenges

While there are these benefits, a tightly held partnership does come with potential challenges:

  • An “us and them” schism emerging between the two classes of partner;
  • Flight risk of those non-equities who feel they can get a better deal elsewhere;
  • A lack of drive among non-equities who feel their careers have capped out;
  • A perception of inequity when the firm records super-normal profits that accrue only to a select few;
  • A cynicism that the non-equity role allows the firm to achieve its partner diversity targets without the need to share power;
  • A narrower base of internal funders and underwriters;
  • Duplication of partner communications and meetings; and,
  • A smaller pool of partners to select from for senior leadership roles.

A widely held partnership, on the other hand, faces the risk of being too conservative and too slow to promote top talent. A burgeoning bottleneck at the senior associate level can set the scene for a feeding frenzy for aggressive competitors.

To create a sustainable business and a positive culture, it is critical to make all partners, regardless of stake, feel and behave like business owners. They should be guardians of the firm’s assets and values, while embracing the agreed principles and disciplines of partnership.

Financial gain or pain

With senior equity partners, the money does a fair bit of the talking. The prospect of immediate financial gain or pain can help facilitate a proprietorial mindset.

For those with a little or no equity, their voice is often a bit softer, the risk is a bit higher and the task is that much harder.

The determining factor is the quality of leadership.

It means working with each partner to align firm and individual purpose, communicate what’s expected, provide the requisite support, give and get feedback – and hold them to account.

Firms face danger if they stray too far from the core

In Articles, Commentary on 10 October 2020 at 12:24 pm

Full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 9 October 2020.

Establishing non-legal businesses seems to be back in favour among Australia’s larger law firms.

Minter Ellison was an early mover with acquisitions of an IT consultancy firm and an executive remuneration practice in 2017. Others include Corrs Cyber (data breach and crisis management), G+T (Gilbert + Tobin) Innovate (in-house legal transformation), Ashurst Consulting (board risk and governance), TG (Thomson Geer) Endeavour (public affairs), McCullough Robertson’s Allegiant (insurance broking) and Hall & Wilcox’s Global Mobility Services (migration, tax and relocation).

The rationale for these new non-law ventures is mostly centred on strengthening or defending the core business and making significant client relationships stickier. Some firms pursue these adjacencies to deliver new sources of profitable growth or to provide a hedge in the event of industry disruption.

Original AFR article

To increase the chances of success of these new ventures and others seeking adjacent opportunities, there are four key strategies to consider.

#Reinforce the core

Many adjacency failures can be put down to firms straying too far from their core business.

Woolworths’ foray into the retail hardware sector via its Masters business was an unmitigated failure. Masters did not reinforce Woolworths’ core grocery business or leverage existing customer and supplier relationships. While its retailing and property management capabilities were strong, they couldn’t outmuscle a formidable incumbent (Bunnings).

Success comes from investing in areas where there are substantial, measurable and mutually reinforcing economies between the current and the new.

#2 Align financial expectations

One of the main reasons law firms have not persisted with non-law businesses in the past is that they have simply not made enough money.

Well-run premium law firms are very profitable. Despite intense competition, the market price for specialised legal advice has increased significantly over the past 20 years.

Many of the new ventures compete in market segments where the price point for partner-level advice is 30 per cent to 40 per cent lower than law firms. Others are pitched at the ‘brain-surgery’ end of the market with relatively low leverage and utilisation.

The upshot is there is a significant risk regarding profit expectations. My advice is to ensure everyone is 100 per cent on the same page early on – and if there are irreconcilable gaps, walk away!

#3 Pre-empt cultural clashes

While great strides have been made in recent years on using the talents of those without legal qualifications, the lawyers still market – and see – themselves as the smartest people in the room.

So, it is vital that your cultural due diligence cover over things like common aspirations, values and standards. When it comes to adding advisors from non-law disciplines, there is an added risk of professional arrogance.

One of the keys to success is to pre-empt and address any cultural differences between the lawyers and those other idiots. Only joking!

#4 Ensure a founder’s mentality

Why is profitable growth so hard to achieve and sustain?

Chris Zook from Bain & Company researched this question and found that when firms fail to achieve their growth targets, 90 per cent of the time the root causes are internal and not market related.

He also found that firms experience a set of predictable internal crises, at predictable stages, as they grow.

Zook suggests that managing these choke points requires a “founder’s mentality”— someone with fire in the belly who is relentless in pursuing the business’ mission, adept at leading others through change and imbuing the firm with a strong client focus.

So, in summary, all it takes to succeed is to have a driven intrapreneur leading a new venture that is deeply connected to the core business – from a market, financial and cultural perspective.

It sounds easy. Until you try.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: