DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
“Connecting Partner Development with Firm Strategy”
Cass/LETG Research
Summary of Research Findings
January 2012
Alison McQuater
Client Director, Cass Executive Education
Introduction
This report summarises the outputs of the research project conducted between May and September
2011, commissioned by the LETG. The results were first presented at the LETG conference on 24 th
November 2011 and this report was produced to allow LETG members not able to attend the
conference to benefit from seeing the key findings from the research.
Research Brief and Methodology
The original aim of the research project agreed with the LETG was defined as:
“To understand current good practice for how law firms (and other professional
service firms) ensure that leadership development for partners is driven from and
connected to their firm’s strategy.”
The approach taken was to conduct two semi-structured interviews with each participating firm, one
with the Managing Partner or equivalent, and the second with the HR Director, or Head of Learning
and Development (L&D) in larger firms, or a senior L&D manager. In most cases the interviews were
conducted separately, but in some cases the Managing Partner and HR Director were interviewed
together at the request of the firm. The interview outline and key questions to be covered were
agreed in advance with the LETG committee. The key questions the survey posed were:
1. How do you decide what leadership training is needed/will be offered to your key partners
and leaders of the firm to help them implement the firm’s strategy?
2. How much of the training & development provided to leaders/partners is determined by
specific strategy imperatives? (And what is its scope?)
3. How do you know whether the training/development has been successful in helping
partners lead/implement strategy?
Research Contributors
In total, 18 legal firms accepted the invitation to contribute to the research, ranging from Magic
Circle firms, ‘Silver Circle’ firms, large UK firms, US firms, and smaller regional and specialist niche
firms. In addition we interviewed two other professional service firms: a major global accounting
firm and a leading global executive search firm. These firms were included to provide some
comparison/contrast with other Professional Service Firms’ (PSFs) approaches to linking strategy and
the development of its firm’s leaders.
The participating law firms were broadly categorised as follows:
3 Magic Circle
7 ‘top 15’ national/international
5 regional - small and mid-sized
2 niche/specialist
1 US, London office
Research Findings
The research yielded a wide variety of responses to the questions about how the firms were seeking
to connect L&D for leaders of the firm to their current strategy or strategic goals and priorities. The
key findings are laid out in the following sections:
Section 1: Different approaches being taken to learning needs identification and analysis.
Section 2: Factors which influence the alignment between the firm’s strategy and L&D.
Section 3: Identifiable success factors for L&D to maximise its impact on the business and the
measurement of return on investment (ROI).
Section 4: Observable trends.
Section 5: Useful tools, approaches, and ideas for L&D professionals.
Section 6: A summary ‘checklist’ for L&D Professionals.
In analysing the outputs of the research interviews, we also identified a number of practical tools,
approaches and ideas which certain firms were using, and which helped to improve the success rates
of L&D initiatives for partners/firm leaders. These are described in Section 5.
Section 1: Different Approaches being taken to learning need identification
and analysis
Different firms are taking very different approaches to identifying, understanding and closing gaps in
firm-level capabilities required to deliver on the firm’s strategic goals. Approaches vary along two
dimensions, as shown in Figure 1 below: firstly by the granularity of the ‘needs identification’
process; and secondly by the degree of alignment between a firm’s strategy and the L&D
interventions for its leaders.
Alignment of L&D and Firm Strategy
Needs Identification Process
‘Firm Wide’
Focused at
individual level
3 Magic Circle
7 Top 15
5 Regional
2 Niche
1 US
2 Non-law
Loose
Close
Degree of Alignment with Strategy
8
Figure 1: Alignment of L&D and firm strategy
(Note: The two dots joined by a straight line indicate one firm that described their previous approach and then their current, revised
approach which was substantially different.)
Different Needs Identification Processes
Some firms described an approach which seemed very individualised, in which key individual leaders
are consulted, usually privately, about how they see their role in leading the firm forward (or their
practice/office/region etc.) and what development, knowledge, or other support they might need to
help them fulfil their responsibilities. Where there are common needs, some collective development
may be provided, but often this approach results in individual coaching or mentoring to the
partner/leader concerned.
Other firms take much more of a ‘macro-level’ view of the skills which need to be developed across
the whole firm in order to deliver strategic goals. For example, a number of firms interviewed are
delivering or have recently delivered leadership training for large groups of partners.
Different Degrees of Alignment
Firms also vary in the degree to which they seek to shape L&D initiatives directly from the strategic
plans: some are implementing L&D interventions which very directly reflect elements of the firm’s
strategy. For example, a number of the firms interviewed (and indeed others known to the
researchers but not participating in the study) have ‘building stronger client relationships’ as a core
part of their strategy. This ‘across the board’ need for greater client relationship-building capability
in all key client partners often results in significant L&D programmes being provided to large groups
of partners.
Other firms are pursuing L&D curricula which are broadly typical of a leadership development agenda
within a law firm: these tend to be very stable year on year and the content does not reflect current
strategic initiatives/priorities of the firm in any material way.
The evidence from the survey was that this second dimension of variation (i.e. the degree of
alignment with strategy) appears to be influenced by a small number of identifiable factors and these
are outlined in the next section.
Section 2: Factors Influencing Strategy/L&D Alignment
The survey found certain factors relating to the tighter linkage between strategy and L&D for
partners/leaders. The first group of factors relate to the firm’s strategic context, including growth,
turnaround, and consolidation.
Growth:
Where a firm is engaged in a growth phase and has a number of growth-enabling or growthdriving initiatives under way, L&D for partners is more likely to include a focus on building
capabilities needed to drive or manage growth (e.g. the ability to work across
international/multi-jurisdictional boundaries where the firm is entering geographic markets),
or a push for new levels and sources of growth within the firm.
Turnaround:
A number of the firms in our survey had recently faced, or were facing, the need for
significant improvement in firm-level performance, sometimes triggered by or highlighted by
the global economic/financial crisis. In these cases, there was evidence that L&D initiatives
were being used as a key lever for effecting change and improving capabilities such as
financial management, performance management, efficiency and productivity management.
Consolidation:
A third (smaller) group of firms were in a phase of evolution in which they could be described
as consolidating recent merger, growth or restructuring/downsizing activities. Here the L&D
focus for partners/leaders included elements of ‘catching up’ or realigning the awareness,
knowledge and skills of the firm’s leaders to reflect the new operating model for the firm.
Where none of these ‘strategic imperatives’ were present, and the firm was more in the mode of
‘business as usual,’, the alignment (or links) between strategy and L&D tended to be weaker.
Other factors which influence the connection between strategy and L&D are more about the attitude
and role of key individuals, in particular the Managing Partner and the HR Director.
Managing Partner:
Where the Managing Partner viewed L&D as a key lever for change, alignment between
strategy and L&D tended to be stronger. In these situations, the Managing Partner also
tended to be more actively involved in sponsoring, shaping and reinforcing L&D
programmes/initiatives. Where the Managing Partner viewed L&D more as an ongoing part
of ensuring consistency of quality and norms, the linkage tended to be looser and the
Managing Partner was less directly involved.
HR Director:
The HR Director’s attitude and credibility with partners/the firm’s leaders was also a
significant factor in how far L&D teams were able to engage with the strategy of their firms
and play a strategic role.
Section 3: Key Success Factors in L&D initiatives supporting strategic goals
and measurement of return on investment (ROI)
There are some clearly identifiable ‘key success factors’ (KSFs) which appear to correlate strongly
with development interventions having a real, and positive, impact in supporting a firm’s strategic
goals.
Reporting line:
If the reporting line of the most senior HR/L&D professional is direct to the Managing
Partner, Board, or executive committee, then the impact/effectiveness of L&D seems to be
higher.
Inclusion:
If the HR head has ‘a seat at the table’ in strategic discussions, the likelihood increases of HR
being proactive in shaping strategic capability-building, and not simply responding to
“requests for training”.
Access:
Higher levels of access to senior leaders (e.g. the Managing Partner, Senior Partner and
Practice/Region/Lines of Business Heads), leading to regular (and frequent) engagement in
‘peer to peer’ dialogue about strategic issues enables L&D to deliver more effectively.
Credibility:
There is a strong correlation between higher levels of credibility of HR/L&D professionals
with the business and greater chances of L&D initiatives being well received andconsidered
important, relevant and having good uptake.
Engagement Process:
– The better the engagement process with partners to build buy-in to proposed development
initiatives, the more accurately training/L&D can be specified and therefore it is more likely
to ‘hit the mark’ and make a real difference.
Active sponsorship/championing:
Where there is active sponsorship by onipion-leading partners, it is more likely that the L&D
will be well-received, considered important, relevant and have good uptake.
Measurement of return on investment (ROI)
It was noticeable from our interviews that there is very little systematic measurement happening of
the impact on business performance and/or the benefits being delivered by L&D initiatives. At best,
this is currently done by the gathering of anecdotal evidence and ‘reporting’ of change observed by
senior sponsors.
Meaningful assessment of ‘return on investment’ in training is extremely difficult and remains one of
the most challenging issues faced by the L&D community and by the firms’ management teams.
However, if it is possible to enunciate this impact and give more attention to this area, L&D teams
could enhance the ‘value perception’ of their activities in the eyes of their firm’s leadership. One of
the insights revealed by the research is that, in defining skills gaps and training needs, the more
detailed and granular the specification of need or desired outcome, the more likely it is to be able to
measure the impact. For example, a ‘need to be better at developing client relationships’ is a very
high level definition of a development need and would be very difficult to measure against;breaking
this down into a more granular level of definition of desired outcomes makes it more measurable.
For example: ‘driving higher revenues from our top 50 clients’, ‘converting more pitches into wins’,
or ‘increasing the number of services sold into our top 20 clients’, would all give much more
measurable targets to aim for and measure against - particularly if these goals are quantifiable as
targets.
Section 4: Observable Trends in the L&D team’s focus in law firms
During the course of the research, we heard L&D professionals in law firms describing some changes
in the focus or context of their work, and how their work connects to other organisational
processes/infrastructure. These trends are outlined below.
1. “Skills Trumps Knowledge”
There has been a shift towards increasing the emphasis on ‘skills’ rather than ‘knowledge’ as
key factors in effectiveness of leaders/partners – this reflects the sector’s client demands
which have moved to a position where technical expertise is now less of a differentiating
factor between firms.
2. Succession
More thoughtful attention is being paid to ‘succession’ for key leadership roles.
3. Contribution Approach
A noticeable shift from a ‘roles and responsibilities’ or a ‘competency’-based definition of the
partner role to one where there is more emphasis on ‘contribution’.
4. Appraisal Process Maturity
There is an increasing ‘maturity’ in the approach to partner appraisals, with greater
importance being attached to the appraisal itself, the disciplines around them, and on having
a meaningful dialogue.
5. Recognition of ‘Point Excellence’ rather than ‘All Rounders’
One interesting trend is the growing recognition of the value of ‘spiky’ people – in other
words, people with one or two very prominent strengths so that the emphasis is to ‘Build on
brilliance’ rather than ‘fix weaknesses’. This trend clearly has direct implications for L&D’s
input and offering, but these implications have not yet been fully worked through at the
different firms consulted during the research .
6. Strategy Maturity
Another clear trajectory is an increasingly strong sense of ‘strategy’ being defined in a more
structured, granular way, partly as a consequence of the recession/economic downturn and
pressures on firms to deliver on specific goals.
Section 5: Useful Tools, Approaches, Ideas for L&D Professionals
During the research, L&D teams talked about a number of different tools and tactics which they had
found successful in terms of gaining engagement from their firm’s leadership for L&D activities.
These are summarised in the diagram below and then discussed in more detail.
Tools and tactics
During the course of the interviews, these ideas that people were using seemed
particularly effective:
T
O
O
L
S
T
A
C
T
The „one page‟
view of strategy
„Show Card‟ slide of
“things I‟d like to be
able to do better”
The partner
intermediary:
bridging and
translating
Linking financial
management skills
clearly to „money in
the partners‟
pockets‟ as a way of
positioning the
training.
Using conversation
about „how my
associates need to
develop‟ as the way
to get partners to
open up about their
own needs
Picking
champions
carefully for
specific strategyled L&D initiatives
I
C
S
Two „test and challenge‟ mechanisms:
1. Mapping practice development plans against cross-practice initiatives
2. Specific „challenge session‟ with practice head.
11
The approaches fall into three broad areas:
A. Building tighter links between strategy and partner/leader development
B. Improving buy-in to ‘training’ and take-up
C. Embedding learning.
A short description of each of these tools and techniques is given below.
A. Building tighter links between strategy and partner/leader development
1) The ‘One-page-view-of-strategy’
One or two firms were working with this idea as a way of communicating clearly and succinctly
how all the parts of the firm would be working together to deliver strategic goals. A particularly
effective format was a single, A4-sized chart in table format which set out the main strands of
the firms’ strategic plan together with the key implementation ‘projects’ or ‘initiatives’, the
individual contributions to these initiatives from individual practice groups/divisions/offices,
Business Service teams (HR, Finance or IT) , clear definitions of who ‘owned’ each initative, and,
very importantly, the success measures and top priority actions for the next 6 months. This chart
would be updated approximately every 6 months. This chart provided a valuable way of showing
the integral L&D projects linked to, and integral to, the achievement of strategic goals.
2) ‘Test and challenge’ mechanisms
Some firms recognised the risk of disconnection between strategic plans and L&D plans when
they were rolled down to individual practice/division level. Two ways were evident in how firms
were addressing this risk. Firstly, practice/division heads would meet periodically with the
HR/L&D head to jointly review the practice/division plans and to assess if all the implicit and
explicit capabilities required to deliver the practice/division goals were in place or were being
developed. These reviews addressed two key questions:
“What skills and capabilities does the practice/division need to be able to deliver our
goals and have we got the training in place to meet any skills gaps?”
“What skills/capabilities does the firm need to develop for strategic reasons which might
not yet be identified in the individual practice/division level L&D plans?”
This process would therefore pick up any gaps and act as an alignment mechanism to ensure
that firm-wide L&D plans and practice-level L&D plans were aligned with each other and with
strategic priorities.
A variation on this process was seen in cases where HR/L&D professionals were involved in
review sessions where practice/division heads would jointly review each firm-wide strategic
project and systematically work through the implications for each practice/division. This
discussion would include addressing the question: “What capabilities do we need to build or
strengthen in each practice/division in order to ensure this firm-wide project is delivered
successfully?”
B. Improving buy-in to ‘training’ and take-up
1) Show Card Slide of ‘Things I’d like to be better at doing’
A simple slide showing a significant number of aspects of a partner’s role, laid out on a slide, not
in a list, but in an apparently random pattern – or in ‘mind map’ format. This one page would be
used to facilitate a conversation with an individual partner about areas of skill they might need or
want to develop. Having the slide ‘on the table’, to be scribbled on, annotated, amended etc.
created a different conversational dynamic which seemed to make it easier for partners to
pinpoint specific needs which they might otherwise feel somewhat vulnerable in ‘admitting’.
Supporters of this approach spoke of this approach enabling more open conversations than had
previously been achieved by asking more direct and potentially ‘exposing’ questions. They also
reported higher levels of buy-in of partners to development actions arising from these
conversations using the ‘show card’ approach.
2) Partner Intermediary/‘Bridge Builder’
Many firms described the value that could be gained from having individual partners who were
strong and consistent supporters of L&D acting as ‘intermediaries’ between the L&D professional
teams and the partner/leader community. This role seemed to encompass:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Helping to define the precise nature of development needs on behalf of the partner
group.
Challenging the partners themselves to think more critically about what capabilities
could be improved.
‘Translating’ subtle or sensitive messages between the L&D professionals and the partner
group.
Challenging the L&D teams in a constructive way to design and procure the most
appropriate training/development support.
Championing the value of L&D initiatives being proposed/planned.
Helping to overcome resistance and promote commitment amongst partners to engage
positively with development initiatives.
The role was particularly necessary and effective in cases where the credibility or experience of
the L&D team was not sufficiently high enough for partners to engage effectively with the
process of ‘learning needs identification’ and/or the design of development initiatives.
3) Linking Skills Development to ‘Money in partners’ pockets’
One or two L&D professionals took a very direct approach to articulating why/how certain
training programmes or initiatives were in the best interest of the firm and also in the best
interests of individual partners: for example ‘team leadership skills’ were linked to the
supervisory obligations of partners and personal indemnity (PI) insurance premium costs. This
approach seemed particularly effective in ‘hooking’ the interest of previously reluctant partners
to develop their skills in these areas.
4) Associates as ‘Proxies’
This technique was used effectively by some L&D professionals to draw partners into a
constructive discussion about their own development needs through the indirect route of asking
them about the their associates and the skills which, in their opinion, the associates needed to be
developing. By starting with this topic and then, sensitively and carefully, leading the
conversation round to the partners’ own development aspirations, fears or needs, this seemed
often to yield more honest and open disclosure of the partners’ own development concerns
than would have been possible with a more direct approach.
5) Champions/Sponsors
This approach was the most widely used technique for building support for L&D initiatives and
projects amongst all the firms interviewed and will no doubt be very familiar to LETG members:
identifying highly-respected partners who were positive supporters of L&D to act as ‘champions’
and influence their peers to ‘get on board’. Some firms spoke of the need to choose these
champions carefully (e.g. “pick the right sponsor for the right issue”) and the consensus was that
the most obvious person was not always being the most effective. An example given was that it
was not necessarily the best approach to ask a female partner to sponsor a ‘diversity’ initiative.
Matching particular issues with individual interests was also an important factor in the
effectiveness of the ‘champion’ in winning broad support for initiatives amongst fellow partners.
C. Embedding learning
1) Contribution framework/appraisal
More and more firms seem to be moving away from a ‘roles and responsibilities’ approach to
defining the partner role to one where they have a more flexible view of how best an individual
partner can contribute most value to the firm by using their unique blend of strengths (this also
relates to the ‘build on brilliance’ philosophy mentioned in Section 4 above). In practice this
means not expecting every partner to be equally brilliant at rain-making, team development,
thought leadership and delivering reputation-building work. The ‘contribution approach’ allows
partners to play to their individual strengths and therefore is a more meaningful and ‘easy to
accept’ basis for partner performance appraisal. This approach is one way in which firms are
becoming more mature in the way they are addressing partner appraisal.
Section 6: A summary ‘checklist’ for L&D Professionals
The following summary presents a number of actions highlighted in different firms which contributed
to the research for HR/L&D professionals to increase the alignment between L&D plans, curricula,
success measures and the firm’s strategic plans. Given the sophistication of many LETG member
firms, many of these approaches may already be commonly applied, whilst others may not have
been tried: they are collated here simply as a convenient (and hopefully helpful) checklist of ‘top
tips’.
a. Get yourself into the strategic dialogue:
Find/create opportunities to be involved in discussions of strategy and future direction.
Contribute actively to the ‘what will it take to deliver this goal’ discussion.
Use your deep understanding of the firm’s current capabilities to inject realism and
pragmatism to implementation plans.
Use your influencing skills to help to align different concerns and priorities across the
leadership group.
Look for ways to add real value to strategy discussions.
Extend the range of what you contribute to discussion beyond simply people
development issues to considerations of external competitiveness, market developments
in relevant areas for your firm; i.e. demonstrate your understanding of the ‘strategic
context’ of the firm.
Avoid talking the language of ‘training courses’ until later in the dialogue cycle.
b. If there is no ‘test and challenge’ mechanism already in place which checks the alignment
between strategic plans and plans to build essential capabilities, take the lead in proposing
and designing appropriate fora/mechanisms. Play an active role in this part of the strategic
planning cycle.
c. Keep a focus on potential future needs and succession issues as well as delivering on today’s
training priorities.
d. Conduct your own ‘relationship audit’: evaluate honestly your relationships with key opinion
leaders, potential sponsors, champions and pioneers and identify how you might deepen
levels of trust and credibility.
e. Get the champions/sponsors of strategic or pioneering initiatives to ‘sell’ the benefits of
this L&D activity to their peers.
f.
Think about how you communicate the successful outcome of L&D initiatives in ways that
reinforce the connection to strategic goals.
g. Continue to pay attention to how you grow and sustain your credibility with
partners/leaders so that your contribution in strategy implementation discussions is sought
and valued.
h. Look for parallels between your relationship with partners/leaders as internal ‘clients’ and
the partners’ relationships with their external clients. This can help build your understanding
of their challenges and give a new perspective to your own challenges in managing their L&D
needs.
i.
Develop and use ‘tools and techniques’ for communicating links between strategic
initiatives, skill development and success measures to help leaders see how L&D can be an
effective ‘lever’ for positive change.
j.
Make sure you have the right sponsor/champion for the right issue.
k. Increase your ‘listening time’ with the broader partner/leadership group to pick up on the
more subtle undercurrents of views and attitudes to change and strategic goals across the
partnership and to take account of these in your own planning.
l.
Think about which ‘strategic capabilities’ can be built incrementally ‘bottom up’ as well as
‘top down’ – i.e.at associate level as well as partner level (e.g. gradually developing client
relationship skills in mid-senior associates so that there is not so much of a ‘jump’ in
capability and confidence needed when they achieve partnership).
m. Get creative about how you engage partners in discussions about the skills they need to
strengthen: indirect approaches; using ways of ‘taking the load’ off them to win trust and
credibility.
n. Remember that the benefit of most HR/training interventions must be demonstrated rather
than ‘sold’.
o. Promote support for L&D initiatives by articulating the direct links between the development
outcomes and what partners care most about: clients, profitability, personal career
interests, and making a positive difference to the firm.
Footnote
This research was undertaken very much from a practitioner point of view and does not purport to
represent a rigorously structured academic research project. However, in collating and analysing the
findings, we identified some parallels and links to findings from other academic research undertaken
by, and referenced by, Professor Laura Empson at the Cass Centre for Research into Professional
Service Firms. This is briefly referenced in Box 1 below.
Links to recent academic research
Management Professionals and Managing Partners: Institutional Entrepreneurship in Professional Partnerships,
Prof. Laura Empson, Cass Centre for Professional Service Firms , Pub. 2011
“To make changes outside discrete areas within their limited
scope of authority, the management professionals require the
strong support of the managing/senior partners together with the
senior lawyer managers responsible for major practice areas and
offices. Their relationships with all of these embedded actors
serving on key management committees such as the Board or
ExCom are therefore crucial to their ability to exercise influence
and operate effectively within the partnership.”
Success factors our study identified:
• Access to top leaders
• Seat at the table
• Credibility to build relationships
“A new logic is emerging which is more consistent with a corporate
model: an acceptance amongst the partners that they require more
explicit forms of performance measurement and management .....
...in order to maximise Profits per Partner.”
Observed Trends # 3 and 4 maturity of partner appraisal
reflecting meaningful contribution
“Individuals also demonstrated considerable skill in
judging the appropriate pace and sequence of change
and in building coalitions amongst the partnership to
ensure that the changes were ultimately adopted by the
partnership.”
Tools and tactics: using champions,
maverick pioneers and partners as
bridges/translators to build coalitions
of support.
14
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out by Alison McQuater and Mary Murphy of Cass Business School, working
with the LETG Research Sub-Committee led by Nigel Spencer (Director of Learning & Development
EME, Reed Smith LLP) and Shalini Sequeira (latterly Learning & Development Manager, Addleshaw
Goddard LLP).
We would especially like to thank all the senior L&D and HR teams, and the Senior/Managing
Partners at the firms who generously gave their time to contribute to the research, without whom it
would have been impossible to carry out the work.