PRACTICE GROUP MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

PRACTICE GROUP MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

FEBRUARY 2012 STRATEGY QUESTION OF THE MONTH

This month’s strategy question of the month focused on practice group management.  Specifically, we looked at the question of whether there is a link between what we ask practice groups (and their leaders) to do and perceptions of how effective those groups are.

The key take-away lessons from the survey:

  • The effectiveness of practice group management remains mediocre overall with an average rating of 5.86 (on a 1-10 scale);
  • The most effective groups focus considerably more on cross-marketing efforts and financial performance than the least effective groups;
  • The least effective groups are more likely to be working on knowledge management and practice support vendor integration than the most effective groups.

The survey asked two questions.  First, law firm leaders were asked to identify what responsibilities practice group leaders were given in their respective firms (from a list formatted as a “check all that apply” question).  Second, law firm leaders were asked to rate the overall effectiveness of practice group leadership at their firm (where 1= not effective, 5 = moderately effective, and 10 = extremely effective).

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

As noted above, ratings of overall effectiveness remain mediocre on balance.  Roughly, one quarter of managing partner and/or COOs consider practice group management at their firms to be highly effective.  Well over half consider practice group management to be only moderately effective.  The remaining respondents consider practice group management at their firms to be largely ineffective.

 

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE GROUPS

The key question then becomes, what distinguishes the most successful groups from the least successful groups.  Note that both highly effective and ineffective groups have some common responsibilities: marketing and new business development (coordination and planning); people management (work flow management, professional development oversight, and planning for entry level hiring); and team building (encouraging teamwork and morale and coordinating group level planning).

Highly effective groups did differ in important ways.

  • First, and most dramatically, highly effective groups were almost three times more likely to be expected to plan for and coordinate cross-marketing activities – both inbound (i.e., seeking work from clients of other groups) and outbound (i.e., encouraging cross-marketing the groups’ clients to others in the firm).
  • Second, highly effective groups were more likely to be asked to focus on the financial performance of their groups – both profit planning and day-to-day administration and hygiene.  In fact, the highly effective groups were almost twice as likely to be involved in financial planning and profit management as the least effective groups.
  • Although less common overall (see overall expectations below), leaders of the more effective groups were considerably more likely to be involved in firm level strategic planning than leaders of less effective groups.

Leaders of the most effective groups were also moderately more likely to be involved in lateral hiring (planning for and executing that hiring), in setting partner compensation, and in acting as a channel for inter-practice and firm level communication.

INEFFECTIVE GROUPS

The less effective groups were considerably more likely to be given responsibility for activities that were – on balance – not priorities across the larger survey sample.  The less effective groups were considerably more likely to be involved in activities that rated at the bottom of the longer list of responsibilities of practice leaders (see the section below on practice group responsibilities).

When compared to the most effective groups, the less effective groups are more likely to be working on two things in particular.

  • First, the less effective groups are nearly twice as likely to be working on knowledge management activities (e.g., form files, brief banks, etc.) than are the most effective practice groups.
  • Second, the less effective groups are much more likely to be working on the development or integration of new practice support vendors (e.g., LPO vendors) into the practice than are their counterparts in other firms.

The less effective groups also appear to be somewhat more directly involved in the entry level recruiting process than their counterparts in more effective practice groups.

To some extent, the differences the most and least effective practices may reflect the size of the responding firms and/or the availability of non-lawyer support.  However, differences regarding the heightened focus on cross-marketing and profit management cannot solely be dismissed as being a function of firm size or the availability of support resources.

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS OF PRACTICE GROUP LEADERS

The survey provided a useful snapshot regarding what responsibilities are most (and least) common for practice group leaders.

The most common responsibilities:

And the least common responsibilities:

*                                  *                                  *                                  *

We will return next week with some follow-up discussion of both this month’s findings – as well as last month’s findings regarding partner compensation systems.  Until then, we welcome your comments below and/or via email to jsterling@sterlingstrat.com.

 

Practice Group Management Responsibilities – Question of the Month

Our strategy question of the month for February focuses on practice group management.  Specifically, we are asking law firm leaders to share their own experiences relative to what practice group leaders are expected to do at their respective firms.  The list of potential responsibilities is long, but many firms focus on a narrower set of responsibilities.

We are interested in learning what practice group leaders are expected to do.  In addition, we hope to link those findings to perceptions of the overall effectiveness of practice management.  So, you will find two questions below.  The first is a “check all that apply” question listing many responsibilities practice group leaders could be expected to take on.  The second is a simple rating scale – how effective overall is practice management at your firm?

We recognize that firms have different terminology for their practice groups (e.g., sections, service teams, practice groups, etc.).  Further, we realize that in many firms practice management occurs at two levels – one focusing on larger, all encompassing groups (e.g., the transactional lawyers, the litigation and dispute resolution lawyers); and the other focusing on more discrete groups (e.g., structured finance, public finance, class action litigation, toxic torts, etc.).  For purposes of this survey, we are looking at the smaller, more discrete groups – so, focus your answers on that level of practice management.

Results will be published here on our blog after the President’s Day holiday.  Deadline for responding to the survey is midnight, February 18th.  All individual responses will remain confidential and anonymous.  Feel free to contact John Sterling with any questions that might arise (312) 543-6616 or jsterling@sterlingstrat.com.

If for some reason you do not see the survey in the window below, click the link here and you can complete the survey at a secure secondary site.

Partner Compensation System Satisfaction – Survey Results

STRATEGY QUESTION OF THE MONTH

Our first ever strategy question of the month seeks to highlight what characteristics of partner satisfaction systems are most closely associated with overall satisfaction with the system.  We asked three related questions:

  • What are the basic characteristics of your firm’s partner compensation system (e.g., objective or subject, bonuses or no bonuses)?
  • Is the system open (e.g., data and/or outcomes are known by all partners) or closed (e.g., data and/or results are confidential)?
  • What is the overall satisfaction with your system (an estimate by the Managing Partner or COO responding to the survey)?

Relative to compensation system characteristics – subjective systems, informed by objective data are far and away the norm.  Over two-thirds of respondents are using some form of subjective system (one of whom uses a purely subjective system).

 

 An overwhelming majority of partner compensation systems are fully open (84%).  Conversely, only five percent are reportedly fully closed (i.e., data and outcomes are entirely confidential).

 

So, who is most satisfied with their system?  It would appear that purely objective systems lead to the highest levels of overall satisfaction.  Further, it appears that adding a bonus component to the partner compensation system actually erodes overall satisfaction – very modestly in subjective systems informed by objective data, but substantially in objective/formula based systems.  Note: Only one respondent had a purely subjective system – the sample size for that column is too small to draw any conclusions.

Because so few respondents had closed systems, it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the impact data transparency has on overall satisfaction.  Anecdotally, the fully closed systems and systems in which the outcomes are closed (i.e., everyone sees the performance data, but actual compensation numbers are confidential) appear to lead to higher levels of satisfaction.  Take this table with a grain of salt given the small sample sizes for the closed and partially closed systems.

 

 *                                  *                                  *                                  *

A few housekeeping points:

  • A total of 56 Managing Partners, Firm Chairs, and/or COO/ Executive Directors completed the survey – not bad for a first survey by new firm.
  • We ran tests for statistical significance, but the relatively small sample size in some categories limited our ability to get statistically determinant findings.
  • We found out late in the process (after the reminder email was out) that the online survey here on the blog did not support some web browsers (73 firm leaders clicked through, we can only assume many had this technical limitation) – we implemented a work around, but very late in the process.
  • Future question of the month surveys will provide an alternative site for those using web browsers not supported by our software.

Given the overall value of this question, we intend to return to it again once we are routinely getting over 100 responses to surveys (inevitable over time).  However, in the near term we will explore other strategy questions in the months ahead.

If you have a suggestion or idea for a strategy question of the month, email us or share it in the comments section below.

Thank you for your interest in law firm strategy topics.  We will keep you posted regarding future content on the blog.

 

 


Partner Compensation System Satisfaction

Welcome to the first of our “question of the month” feature.  This month we are exploring satisfaction with partner compensation systems to determine if particular system characteristics correlate with overall satisfaction.

Survey questions are just below the signatures and tags – thanks for your participation!

Results of the survey will be published on this blog on January 23, 2012.  Deadline for completing the survey is midnight, January 21st.  Feel free to point other law firm leaders to this survey.   We look forward to sharing and discussing the results with our readers.

 

For those of you whose web browser is not supporting the survey below, click here and you will link directly to the questions the Survey Monkey site.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Welcome

Welcome to Sterling Strategies’ blog.  Check back frequently for commentary on strategic management topics and publications.

We will use this space to advance an empirical study of law firm strategy in particular.  Every month we will pose a question relevant to the strategic issues facing law firms.  We will gather that data, report the results and comment on the implications of those findings.  We look forward to the dialog that empirical research will create.