Partner Compensation System – What Drives Satisfaction (and Dissatisfaction)?

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Sterling

As noted at the outset of this year, Sterling Strategies has partnered with the Managing Partner Forum and TheRemsenGroup for a series of monthly mini-surveys of managing partners on topics of strategic importance to law firms and their leaders. It bears strong similarities to our 2012 “strategy question of the month” series – with the added benefit of a partnership with the Managing Partner Forum.

Our first topic – for the January 2014 mini-survey – was the drivers of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with partner compensation systems. The survey drew nearly 140 responses and the findings are informative.

Subjective systems, informed by objective data are the most common approach to setting partner compensation.
The overwhelming majority of systems are fully open (i.e., both performance data and compensation results are open to all partners).
The smallest firms encounter the highest levels of dissatisfaction.

See the full analysis of the partner compensation satisfaction survey at the Managing Partner Forum web site. The results of these monthly surveys will be published under the “Leadership Matters” tab on the MPF web site. We hope you find the results interesting and useful in your own firm.

Our topic for February 2014 is practice group management – and the approaches that lead to more effective (and less effective) practice management. The survey is open to all managing partners (we recognize many of our readers hold other leadership roles – we need to find a good way to tap the collective wisdom of law firm leaders who are not lawyers by training). If you are a managing partner and have two-minutes to share your experiences with practice group management, click here to be taken directly to the survey.

We welcome your feedback on the survey results and your ideas for capturing and sharing the collective insights and experiences of all law firm leaders. Improving law firm management and leadership is the primary purpose of this blog and we are always open to your ideas.

You can join our mailing list by clicking here.

Five Tips to Better Align Budgets with Firm Strategy

Posted on October 18, 2013 by Sterling

Most law firms are deeply in (or about to enter) budget season. We surveyed law firm leaders last year regarding best practices around budget development. As a seasonal follow-up to that survey, we offer the following five tips to improve the alignment of law firm strategy with annual budgets.

Engage Practice Group Leaders Directly in the Budget Development Process

A surprisingly high percentage (44%) of firms in last year’s survey reported that they do not build budget projects from the practice groups up (i.e., direct costs, gross revenues, realizations, etc.). The budget development process provides an excellent opportunity to cascade firm strategy (and strategy implementation) to the practice group level.

Engaging practice group leaders in budgeting – in thinking about cost drivers, revenue drivers and factors that contribute to client satisfaction (which often translates to realizations) – helps to “connect the dots” for people. It highlights how strategies are being operationalized in the practices and makes those connections tangible in financial terms.

Budget for R&D

What does the average partner (i.e., the partner not involved in management) think about budgets? Mainly, he/she wants the firm to beat its budget so that distributable income is higher than projected – creating a pool of funds that can pay partners more than their “expected compensation.”

By explicitly budgeting for R&D (both time investments and direct costs), the tension between partners’ desire to distribute all income at year end and the firm’s need to invest for the long term is mitigated. Essentially, R&D projects should be prioritized along with other investments (see the next section). At year end, assuming the firm had a good year, everyone is happy. The firm has made needed investments for its future. The partners get distributions above what was budgeted.

Prioritize Budgets in Financial and Strategic Terms

Law firm leaders (especially COOs and CFOs) are very comfortable thinking about projects and initiatives in financial terms. Projects with high returns on investment (ROI) and/or fast payback are a higher priority than low return projects – a blinding glimpse of the obvious (a la Barbarians at the Gate).

In addition to the financial perspective, we recommend adding consideration of the expected strategic impact of a project to the prioritization process. Essentially, projects that contribute to multiple strategic goals (i.e., that are more “mission critical”) are higher priority initiatives. For example, a Knowledge Management project may contribute to achieving goals associated with client satisfaction; improved efficiency/value; and improved predictability. Contrast that with a project to reconfigure office space – which may have a high ROI, but relatively little strategic impact.

Prioritization across both dimensions (financial and strategic) yields added clarity on what the priorities really need to be across a range of projects – and may even lead a firm to delay or spike selected projects.

Validate Revenue Projections by Taking a Client (bottom-up) View

Revenue projects are (more often than not) built on the basis of headcount, anticipated hours, and rates (i.e., FTE x Hours x Realized Rates = Gross Revenues). That is entirely logical and appropriate. However, a nice check on that approach is to look at revenues from a client perspective.

At many firms, the top 50 clients (plus or minus) represent a substantial share of total revenues (often well over 50%). By asking relationship partners what those major clients are expected to do in the coming year, a firm can help to validate its revenue projections. If most of the major clients are expected to continue to generate similar or higher revenue streams, great. However, if revenues from important clients are expected to fall (e.g., a major case has been resolved, the company has been sold, etc.), it may lead the firm to make important adjustments to its budget.

Align with Other Metrics – Financial and Non-Financial

Last December we asked law firm leaders where they had reliable metrics and where they did not. Over 95% of firms have solid, reliable financial metrics. Metrics associated with client satisfaction, people development, and business processes are more spotty – though those kinds of metrics do exist on at least a limited basis.

The budget process provides an opportunityfor firm and practice group leaders to think about and revisit financial and non-financial metrics. Essentially, it is an opportunity to ask the question, “If we make or exceed this budget, will we also achieve our other measurable objectives?” Similarly, it is an opportunity to ask, “Are the financial and non-financial metrics we have adopted to track the success (or lack thereof) of our strategy consistent with the budget we are about to propose and approve?”

Essentially, the budget process becomes another tool to help a firm and its practice groups effectively use a balanced scorecard to monitor and drive strategy implementation.

* * * *

As always we welcome your comments and insights – in the comment section below, via email at info@sterlingstrat.com, and over the phone at (312) 543-6616.

Five Tips for Sustaining a Great Law Firm Culture

Posted on March 5, 2013 by Sterling

Steven Harper wrote a terrific piece on law firm culture in response to the latest Citi Private Bank/Hildebrandt update on the legal market. Harper is incredulous of Citi/Hildebrandt’s warning that “Law firms discount or ignore firm culture at their peril.” He makes the point that “consultants have encouraged managing partners to focus myopically on business school-type metrics that maximize short-term profits…what has resulted from that focus: the unpleasant culture of most big firms.”

The reverse does not have to be (in fact often is not) true. Namely, firms with a strong, collegial culture are not inherently doomed to poor economic performance. They may not top $3mm a year in profits per equity partner, but everyone working in those firms earns a very good living, they have strong and enduring client relationships, and they enjoy a balanced and rewarding professional life. Having that kind of positive firm culture requires work and discipline – and, especially, a commitment not to throw away long held values in the face of short term economic challenges.

Our recent survey on best practices in law firm strategic planning confirmed this point. Namely, the firms experiencing the most successful results from strategic planning are much more likely to have articulated shared values or principles as part of that process. At the same time, those highly successful firms are much more likely to adopt and track measurable objectives as part of the strategy process. In other words, the most successful firms balance a strong commitment to long held cultural values with a pragmatic approach to setting objectives (i.e., financial, client relationship, and other measures).

Having had the pleasure and privilege of working with a number of firms over the years that have cultivated and sustained great cultures, here are five suggestions for how you can cultivate, embrace and sustain a set of shared values that define a great law firm culture.

Honor the Founder(s) – When I started my consulting career at Arthur Young (that dates me), John Smock made sure everyone in the practice got a copy of a relatively short book entitled, Arthur Young and the Firm He Founded. That little book encapsulated many of the core values of the firm – and traced them to the values of the hard working Scotsman who immigrated to America and started the firm. Whether your firm was founded 20 or 200 years ago, you are likely to find some of the roots your firm’s values and culture in the character of your founder(s). Honor those roots.
Celebrate a Milestone Year – Round number anniversaries lend themselves to celebrations (10^th, 50^th, 100^th). So do record years, though they tend to arrive with more frequency and less fanfare. Take the opportunity of a milestone year to reemphasize the shared values that brought the firm to that point. Embrace and celebrate your culture and your shared values – not just the anniversary or the record.
Document Your Stories, Your History and Your Culture – I have a number of books in my collection from clients – both law firm and corporate – in which the history of their organization (and its culture and values) is documented and described for posterity. Sometimes those books are commissioned in conjunction with an anniversary, others mark the passing of great leaders, and still others were done simply to capture the stories before they were lost to memory. Those stories may be the very best window into truly understanding the firm’s culture and the values – they are a way to connect our rational understanding of the values to our emotional understanding of values (see this brief slideshow for more). Stories can even be used when you need to drive cultural change (see Peter Bregman’s HBR article on the topic).
Ask Your People to Define the Culture – We have used a technique very successfully over the years to isolate core values and help organizations coalesce around them. Ask a very simple question, “What three words best describe the values that endure over time in our firm?” The resulting word-cloud is enlightening and it helps to define (or reinforce) the firm’s shared values. It can be used in many settings to spark a discussion of shared values and the culture – keeping that culture front and center as other decisions are being made (e.g., employee reviews, partner compensation, lateral hiring, strategic planning, etc.).
Put It In Your Plan – Finally, take a lesson from the firms having the most success with strategic planning and strategy implementation. Articulate your values as part of your overall strategy. Include a long term mission as part of your strategic plan and include a concise articulation of your core values in that mission.

While the embrace of firm culture and values may be belated for some, it is welcome nonetheless. Whether your firm is large, mid-sized or small, sustaining a positive firm culture is a critically important element in a genuinely successful law firm strategy. Who knows, it might even land your firm at the top of the Vault.com rankings for best firms to work for.

Partner Development Strategy – November 2012 Strategy Question of the Month – Survey Results

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Sterling

Our strategy topic for the November 2012 focused on where the future leaders of law firms will be coming from. There is a simple industry wide issue relative to generational demographics. A very large cohort of baby boomer partners will be retiring over the next 20 years. In fact, by 2020 (eight years from now) half of the boomer cohort will be 65 or older. If you look at the broader demographics, the generational cohorts create something akin to a roller coaster.

Baby Boomers are a large cohort of over 80 million people
Generation Xers are a smaller cohort of roughly 60 million people
Millennials are a large cohort of over 80 million (similar in size to the boomer generation – with many still in high school)

So, how do you overcome the overall industry (and societal) demographics to ensure you have strong people across all generational cohorts? Our findings point emphatically to the value of hiring and developing ‘lifers’ (i.e., people who stay with the firm they join at the entry level). In other words, the best path to ensuring you have great people across the generations is to hire and develop your own! To quote a couple of respondents:

“We are blessed with strength throughout the demographic ranks, as well as a culture that is attracting like minded star/potential star laterals. We highly value having high quality lawyers at all levels (including entry level), training and mentoring, and making it such that all who work here can, if they do their parts, make a career at our firm.”
“(Our future leaders are) most likely from “lifers”. We have a good group of them.”

Firms who reported that 50% of more of their current attorneys are ‘lifers’ (let’s call those firms ‘high lifers’) are dramatically more confident in the future prospects of their young people. Asked the importance of various generational cohorts in future succession (i.e., who are most likely to produce business developers and leaders over the next 10 years):

‘High lifers’ are three times as likely to consider their current associates to be a very or critically important source of future leaders (compared to ‘fewer lifer’ firms).
Similarly, ‘high lifers’ are 3.5 times as likely to have confidence in associates that they ‘plan to hire and train in the next ten years.’
‘Fewer lifers’ on the other hand only truly have confidence in their mid-career (over 45) and younger equity partners.

More broadly, no one expresses much confidence in the ability of future lateral hires to be key players in 10 years. However, there were firms anecdotally expressing great confidence in their laterals.

“We have grown over the last 10 years 200%, mainly from lateral hires. It is from this group that we see our future leaders.”
“(Our future leaders will be) highly successful laterals that subscribe to our business philosophies and firm culture.”

In addition, there is not much confidence in the future prospects of younger (under 45) non-equity partners. While not entirely surprising, the lack of confidence in non-equity partners raises enough questions about their long term role(s) to fill its own blog post.

Hiring at the entry level has been consistently lower across the industry – as compared to pre-recession levels. The following pie chart explains why that condition persists quite clearly.

Finally, a couple of respondents looked into the proverbial crystal ball and offered predictions about where the future generation of law firm leaders will emerge.

“They will come from the middle tier of law schools, they will have worked their way thru college and law school, they will have started working early in their teens and understand how to make a dollar. They will display a high level of emotional intelligence and a majority will be women.”
“From those who have a business/entrepreneurial bent as opposed to simply applying a legal analysis to a set of facts.”

As always we thank those who took the time to share their insights with peers and colleagues. Comments are open and we welcome your emails and phone calls as well.

…

IMPROVING THE BUDGET PROCESS – September 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Sterling

Our September Law Firm Strategy Question of the Month focused on the budget process. Specifically, this month’s quick survey identified the budgeting practices that are most useful in real world settings in law firms. As in past months, we also looked for differences between firms reporting the greatest effectiveness in their respective budget processes from those reporting less success.

Unlike previous Strategy Questions of the Month (see for instance the June survey on strategic planning or the February survey on practice group management), there was not a tremendous difference between the most effective budget processes and others’. That may in part be a function of the generally high level of effectiveness law firm leaders reported in their respective processes. As you can see from the chart below, very few firms consider their budget process to be ineffective (or even of limited effectiveness).

To the extent there were differences between the “very effective” firms and others, the differences were very much on the margins. For instance, the budgeting approaches rated “absolutely essential” at firms with the most effective processes, were similarly rated “absolutely essential” by their peers in firms experiencing somewhat less success in the budget process. Nevertheless, there were a few notable differences (again, on the margins):

The most successful firms were more likely to build-up budget projections at the practice group level (in addition to doing so at the individual attorney and administrative department levels);
The most successful firms were somewhat more strongly focused on ensuring the budget reflected growth plans, whereas less successful firms were moderately more focused on ensuring their budgets reflected cost cutting commitments;
Finally, the most successful firms were more likely to focus leadership attention on aligning the budget with strategy (at the firm and practice group levels).

Firm leaders were asked to share how they approach the process philosophically (intentionally conservative, aggressive or “as accurate as data and projections will allow”). Roughly 80% of firms are striving for accuracy (over 90% of the most successful firms’ intent is to develop as accurate a budget as possible). We view that as a positive sign for the industry as a whole. In the depths of the recession (fall of 2008 and again in 2009), a majority of firms were taking a decidedly conservative approach to budgeting. The swing toward developing accurate budget projections is a healthy sign that leadership has greater confidence in the future.

The core question this month focused on which practices and approaches were most useful and helpful in the budget process. The top three approaches (each considered “absolutely essential” by over 60% of respondents) were:

Building-up projections at the individual attorney level (i.e., salaries, draws, working attorney receipts, etc.);
Developing administrative department projections from agreed upon priorities and strategies; and
Reviewing all attorney, practice and/or departmental projections via a comparison with the previous year (budget and/or actual).

A relatively high percentage of firms do not even try to build-up projected revenues at the client level (e.g., projected revenues from the top 100 clients) or at the practice group level. Slightly more than half of all firms build-up client level projections and fewer than three-quarters of firms develop practice level projections.

Finally, while the distinctions between the most effective budget processes and the moderately successful processes were only found at the margins, law firm leaders shared a number of important ideas, insights and advice in the open-ended comments. Among the most insightful input were the following:

Accuracy is important to us…final result of budget is cash flow to partners (who) plan their own lives around the draws and distributions. Also, variance explanations that are based on inaccurate budgeting rather than on real differences from our expectations are viewed with suspicion.
(We) do intensive capital expenditures budget, plus detailed monthly cash flow (which is NOT an income statement), plus zero-based approach to all expenses.
We also do both pessimistic and optimistic models based on individual attorney performances.
We update budgets every 6 month in rolling 18 month program of forecasting.
Expenses are easy and we can plug them in and hit them within one percent annually. Lining up expenses with strategies and goals is simple and straight forward. Predicting revenue and cash flow is the hard part; we are usually successful in estimating and in the last couple of years have had done well with monthly cash flow projects. Nonetheless, cash receipts are always a bit lumpy and make budgeting a challenge.
Formula for best shot at success — balance realization with utilization and monitor expenses closely. Be efficient and effective and take nothing for granted.
Our attorneys are very reluctant to forecast much more than 3-6 months ahead, so trying to get them to project for a full year has proven impossible. We base (the year) on trends, knowledge of practices and their short range projections.
(Relative to client level projections, we do a) case by case analysis of all contingent cases…review three year averages of attorney productivity…and review any large non-repeat type cases or situations.
(We) have found it useful when presenting the expense budget to management to sort (accounts) in descending order on dollar value. This helps to ensure that major items are discussed, and that time isn’t wasted debating the lobby magazine subscriptions.
(We use a) bottom up process. The Finance Committee and Board review budgets, ask for justifications and will require a bottom up revision to get the final budget in line with long range goals. (It is) time consuming but effective in getting buy-in at all levels.

*******************************************************

As always we thank the many, many law firm leaders who took the time to share their knowledge and insights on this month’s strategy question. The comments section is open for those who want to continue the dialog and we welcome your calls (312-543-6616) and emails (jsterling@sterlingstrat.com) as well.

Improving the Budget Process – September 2012 Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month

Posted on September 21, 2012 by Sterling

The budget process is right around the corner – at least for the vast majority of firms that are on a calendar year cycle.

These quick monthly surveys are primarily intended to build a foundation of useful information and benchmarks for law firm leadership. While budget development may not be viewed as strategic, for many organizations it is a vital tool for allocating resources in ways that are consistent with and supportive of the overall strategy. At any rate, we can all benefit from learning about what is working best in budget processes around the legal industry.

With that in mind, let’s learn about what approaches are proving to be most useful and most helpful in the budget development process in law firms. As always, individual responses will remain entirely confidential. The survey should take less than five minutes. Aggregate responses will be reported at the end of the month on this blog. Deadline to respond is end of business PDT on Thursday, September 27, 2012. As always, thank you for your help and participation.

If for any reason you do not see the survey in the box below, click here and you will be taken directly to the survey host site.

Managing Under Productive Partners

Posted on August 31, 2012 by Sterling

The August 2012 law firm strategy question of the month focused on managing under productive partners – what approaches firms take to the issue; what works and what does not; and how the process plays out over time. In a very practical sense, this topic is the counter point to the July 2012 question of the month – what characteristics comprise a ‘model’ partner?

The term “under productive partner” implies that ‘problem’ partners are primarily an economic issue. Certainly, persistently weak revenue production is the most common reason for frustration with partner performance. However, a number of law firm leaders noted in open-ended comments that “citizenship issues” and other qualitative factors regarding professional demeanor can also lead to a firm insisting a partner work to turn his or her performance around.

A Daunting Task, But Not Hopeless

Asked how often under productive partners manage to turn it around, over 95% of law firm leaders agreed that fewer than half of all ‘problem’ partners manage to have a “career renaissance.” In fact, over 50% of law firm leaders have found that fewer than 10% of partners manage to make an effective turn around. The silver lining – not a single law firm leader has found the well to be completely dry – everyone has seen a successful turnaround within their own firm.

Patience is a Virtue…

Firms are generally, but not universally, patient with regard to under performance. Many leaders noted that partner performance statistics are averaged over multiple years, so it takes time before performance issues are considered a persistent problem. Over two-thirds of the leaders responding to this survey noted that it takes at least two years of weak performance before the issue is addressed at all.

What Are Firms Doing to Address the Issue?

Asked to share which approaches they have tried and how well they have worked, law firm leaders were candid. The most commonly used approaches to address partner under performance:

Every firm has tried reducing compensation and holding one-on-one meetings with ‘problem’ partners.
Nearly everyone has tried “doing nothing and hoping things improve” (NOTE: It does not work – 90% report it “never works”).
Over 90% of law firm leaders have tried threatening compensation reductions and 90% have tried individual partner plans.

Conversely, a few approaches have not been as widely adopted, though some (as will become evident below) are actually reasonably successful in their own ways. Less frequently tried approaches include:

Only about half the firms indicated that they have tried to actively outplace partners (i.e., at client organizations, on the bench, etc.).
Slightly more than half of all firms have tried using a professional coach with under productive partners.
About 60% have tried “group interventions” (i.e., more than just a one-on-one meeting).

Now, it is absolutely true that actively outplacing someone is not really a turnaround per se – at least within the confines of the firm. However, for many partners, leaving (and landing well) is a tremendous career turn around. And, as it turns out, it is by far considered to be the most successful approach (by those who have tried it).

Blunt Tools

The other more successful approaches included actively cutting compensation; holding one-on-one discussions with under performers; and requiring individual plans. As one managing partner noted, compensation is a blunt tool and one you only get to use once a year (at most). In fact, these are all fairly blunt tools. However, a combination of one-on-one discussions along with individual turnaround plans has the direct benefit of creating accountability and a path forward for the partner in question.

Ultimately, the clear take-away messages:

Doing nothing and hoping it gets better never works;
Confronting the issue, creating a path forward, and holding people accountable has a reasonable success rate; and
Actively out placing those who cannot or will not turn it around is remarkably successful.

We welcome and encourage your comments below and your emails to John Sterling – jsterling@sterlingstrat.com .

Managing Under Productive Partners – August 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on August 23, 2012 by Sterling

Last month’s law firm strategy question of the month asked law firm leaders to create a ‘model partner’ (i.e., a partner with the optimal balance of positive characteristics). The ‘model partner’ results can be found in the July 2012 archives here.

Obviously, few partners actually deliver the perfect balance – but, the right balance is achieved across the partnership. Unfortunately, some partners’ contribution to the firm erodes – sometimes dramatically – over time. That may be the most vexing challenge for managing partners – turning around the performance of an under productive partner.

So, this month’s quick strategy survey will help us put some data around the question – what works and what does not work in helping under productive partners turn their performance around? The quick 5 minute (or less) survey is embedded in the window below. If for some reason you do not see it, click this link and you will be taken directly to the survey.

Deadline for responding is the end of business PDT on Wednesday, August 29, 2012. Individual responses will remain confidential (as always). Results will be published on this blog at the end of the month. Thanks you for your insights and participation.

SURVEY RESULTS – Creating the ‘Model Partner’ – July 2012 Law Firm Strategy Question

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Sterling

Our July law firm strategy question of the month focused on the characteristics that comprise a “model partner.” While crafting the balance of behaviors and traits of an ideal partner is a bit more fun (and bit less strategic) than previous months’ questions, the results (and the thought process) are useful. In particular, in an era of increased partner mobility and a tighter reign on entry into partnerships, it is very important to understand what your firm expects and needs from its partners (or at least its hypothetical “model partners”).

As some were quick to note in the open-ended comments section, few partners are actually a perfect balance of the positive characteristics highlighted in the survey question. In the real world, partners’ individual strengths and limitations tend to balance each other out across the firm. Thus, some are much stronger business originators, while others are extraordinarily creative lawyers and problem solvers. Some are exceptional relationship managers and some are truly gifted in their ability to bring people together and to develop the talents of their peers and subordinates.

The “model partner” question was structured as an exercise in balance. Survey participants divided 100 points across a range of positive characteristics good partners exhibit. Thus, the overall result produces a pie chart that visually depicts the “ideal” balance of positive traits we want in our partners. Note that in the pie chart, we have grouped multiple characteristics into larger themes (for instance, training, professional development and mentoring were grouped together into people development).

The idea of balancing a range of positive characteristics is undoubtedly the most productive way to think about what constitutes a “model partner.” But, the characteristics can also be view through the prism of a simple list as well. In that context, business origination was clearly the most important characteristic (over one-third of the aggregate weighting was given to origination). Working attorney receipts and the set of qualitative factors that make-up a “good citizen” of the firm were roughly tied as the second most important factors (both slightly under 20% of the weighting). People development, outstanding legal acumen, and participation in the management of the firm each received slightly less than 10% of the weighting.

As noted above, the survey provided an open-ended question to allow for further comments and/or additions to the list. As is virtually always the case with these “question of the month” surveys, the open-ended responses were thoughtful and added important ideas to the conversation. Several characteristics not specifically noted in the “divide 100 points” options were mentioned by multiple respondents including:

Positive attitude, upbeat, optimism in the face of challenges;
An ownership mentality;
A team player, willingness to help others;
Client focused.

In addition, a number of other terms offered in the open-ended response help to define some of the more qualitative aspects of good partners including loyalty, integrity, responsiveness, self-directed, and “servant leadership” (a term coined by Robert Greenleaf in a 1970 essay).

Finally, for those who completed the full survey exercise and are interested in the detailed responses, you will find those in the chart below. Note that the weightings do not add to 100 in this chart, since they represent average weightings regardless of the number of responses given to that characteristic. In that sense, it gives added weight to the lower rated items (which were given de facto ‘zeros’ by some respondents).

As always, we welcome your comments below or off-line via email at jsterling@sterlingstrat.com. Thank you for reading and for participating in the July 2012 strategy question of the month.

Sterling Strategies

Tag Archives: Partner Compensation