by Patrick J. McKenna

Identifying the attributes that distinguish effective practice group performance.

Every few years a new theme emerges in law firm management. Since the late 1980s when resistant attorneys were finally forced to take the marketing of professional services seriously, we've seen everything from brochuritis to total quality management assume center stage, hold the interest of firms for a brief time, then flicker and fade from consciousness.

Yet the latest theme is more than just a passing fad. It is, in fact, a theme that speaks directly to how law firms are structured, how the profession is practiced, and to how services actually get transacted and delivered to clients. In recent years, there has been a strong new emphasis on practice groups as representing the heart and soul of effective organizational and business development strategy.

This focus is in contrast to a more institutional approach in which professionals are ostensibly marketing the mother firm on the basis of their collective resources and established reputation, especially at the larger firms.

What firms have now discovered is that most professionals really sell specialized services and / or specialized knowledge of particular client industries. Ergo, the practice group is a natural structural and marketing medium.

Of course, there are perceived perils here: practice leaders all too often experience a high degree of frustration. They report to us that:

• on average they invest a significant amount of their non-billable time but always with a sense of pushing uphill;
• the professionals comprising their groups are extremely competent and by-and-large doing good work, yet seldom are all working to their individual potential;
• when group members do take initiative it is usually regarding things that they are personally interested in, not necessarily what is in the best interests of the practice group; and
• they find themselves expending excessive time and energy prodding members to get the projects completed that they have been given.

Overall, they tell us that they believe that their groups do above average, but wish they could achieve bone-satisfying performance. Or, according to the practice leader at a major New York firm when asked what were the most significant results achieved thus far, responded I called a war, and nobody came!

If you're a battle-scarred veteran living a similar experience, you are probably grimacing with recognition. Does life in the trenches have to be like that, involving plenty of hard work and aggravation with only the occasional bright spot?

Indeed, while the ascendancy of the practice group as a paradigmatic services delivery instrument is a fait accompli, it is our sense that many in the legal profession are still in a state of transition, and that the best approach to supercharging these practice groups remains very much an ongoing struggle. Our message then may come as a welcome relief to those managing partners who have been struggling over their frustration with trying to forge a collection of professionals into a functional practice group.

When the conditions are right, a team effort can be essential to capturing the highest performance results possible. One of the curious observations our research and experience uncovered is that when practice groups do well or win, their success is attributed to factors within the group itself. However, to date, there has been little done to identify what those success factors might be. Concurrently, when practice groups do poorly, such failing performance is usually attributed to factors outside -- presumably beyond the control and blame of the group. And again, little has been done to examine how to mitigate these potential impediments.

Our formal research into the requirements for effective practice leadership first began in the summer of 1993 when we were asked by the Institute for Law Firm Management (ILFM) to assist them in developing the first program specifically tailored to the needs of practice group managers. That summer, we conducted intensive telephone interviews with both the managing partners and selected practice leaders from each of ten of the top 100 largest law firms throughout the United States, identified for having progressive management systems. We believed that the lessons of the mediocre were to be found anywhere but that truly profound insights would be discovered only by studying the exemplary.

Thereafter, we initiated a separate project entitled best management practices designed to solicit from different professional service firms world-wide, real and tangible examples of what their firms were doing to advance the state of effective practice management. We subsequently received submissions from 63 legal, accounting and other professional services firms from over a half-dozen different countries.

During 1994, we conducted a series of intensive two-day Practice Leadership Workshops in Chicago, Toronto and London involving participants from the executive committees and practice group leaders from 78 different firms. Many of these sessions involved interactive exercises identifying what these practice leaders found to be working as well as what did not work in leading professionals.

In 1996, we surveyed the managing partners and practice leaders from 105 of the Top 700 largest law firms and the 71 member firms comprising two large international accounting associations on specific issues of practice management and leadership; including the number and size of practice groups, how practice leaders are chosen, where they spend their time, what kind of formal training they are provided, how they deal with performance issues, and how they are compensated for conducting their management responsibilities.

inally, we met with the managing partners and executive committee members from numerous law and accounting firms throughout Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom to interview them on practice leadership issues.

What we discovered is that every high performance practice group is extraordinary in its own way. What we learned is that there was a surprising consistency to the characteristics of the most effective practice groups.

The following attributes comprise what we have found (thus far) to be among the most important elements to developing high performance practice teams. None of these are presented in any order of priority or importance. While all of the following characteristics may not be present in every high performance practice group, most are associated with the most successful groups that we observed.

IN THE BEST GROUPS THE LEADER IS MORE A COACH THAN A BOSS, VISIONARY OR ROLE-MODEL

Irrespective of whether you call it a section, department, client team, industry group or strategic business unit (as they do in the U.K.); and whether there is a manager, leader, head, chair, practice deputy, team captain or coordinator -- in the best practice groups we inevitably find that someone is formally or informally serving as a coach.

In many firms being appointed, elected or drafted as practice leader is viewed as some form of accolade or reward. Too often the position goes to the most eminent, or the most senior, or the best business-getter among the partners. None of these criteria is necessary or appropriate.

One prevailing model seems to be that leadership requires of someone that they must have a vision and then set to work at aligning their people with that vision. This notion conjures up some image of a superhuman intelligence who is suppose to divine where the group is going so that professionals might just willingly follow along. Leadership in such a model is reduced to a combination of inspiration and salesmanship. Occasionally it might happen this way, but we think the evidence of it successfully occurring are quite rare.

In focus group sessions and workshops comprised of managing partners and practice group leaders, we have often engaged participants in an interactive exercise to explore what attributes they could identify as common to the best managing partner, mentor or leader that they had ever experienced working with over the course of their professional careers. We specifically asked them: What did that person do that inspired you and caused you to perform better than you might otherwise have performed?

Repeatedly, they told us that the individual who came to mind for them:

• always displayed a sincere concern for the long term best interests and continuous development of them as individuals;
• was unselfishly generous in their provision of time both during and after office hours;
• was always accessible, easy to talk to, nonjudgmental, and served as a good sounding board to have them think through their own ideas;
• encouraged people to take risks, championed their efforts, provided protection and helped them learn from their mistakes;
• demanded a sense of urgency, attention to detail and people's best efforts on every single client project; and
• took great pride in their work and in the team, always displaying a positive attitude and a sense of humor.

What was most revealing, was that this individual was not cited for their authoritative presence, their extraordinary vision, their seniority, their rainmaking ability or personal book of business. It would seem that they were admired in their role because they were perceived as someone these people could go to if they had a problem and someone who was actually perceived to care and would help people become more successful.

Partners who participated in this exercise quickly realized that if these were indeed the behaviors that inspired them to greater performance, then these were also the behaviors that any effective practice leader must demonstrate to inspire others.

What all this suggests is that firms may need to pay homage to the egos of their most competent professional or best business generator by acknowledging their presence as the senior in the group. They may even give them the title of Practice Leader or Group Chair. They will, however, very quickly need to appoint or draft some individual to serve as practice coordinator or Vice-Chair. This professional will need to function as the practice coach -- the catalyst and facilitator to provide hands-on assistance to the other professionals in the group.

As in sports, nowhere is it written that to be the best coach, you must also be the best player.

THEY COUNT MANAGEMENT TIME AS BILLABLE TIME

When asked if there was any compensation consideration extended to those who lead practice groups in this firm, one practice group leader from one of the five largest U.S. firms responded: Well, I was informed 'do it well, or it will cost you.'

One of the important first steps for those in firm leadership seeking to enhance each practice coaches' role and effectiveness, is to define mutual expectations with those chosen to coordinate the groups activities. Mutual expectations cover both the time that is expected to be invested and the basis upon which any compensation will be provided.

The best performers seem to set a minimum-maximum requirement for the amount of non-billable time that should be devoted to practice management matters. Both a minimum and a maximum are important. The minimum is a sincere expression by firm leadership signifying the importance of the task, while the maximum is an indication that any additional time taken to coach the practice group will not be viewed as an excuse for poor personal performance.

ften that non-billable time will be somewhere around 300 hours a year. (In fact, our survey of the Top 700 firms indicated, of those responding, that the average was about 205.5 non-billable hours annually, or about a half a day a week.) The leadership of the firm will also clearly define where and how that time should be invested, how it should be recorded (by date and activity), and how accountability will be determined.

By way of an example, accredited time is often that time that a practice coach spends engaged in one-on-one mentoring, counseling and assisting members of the group with their individual projects and their practice development efforts; as well as that time spent visiting with the clients of the practice group to get feedback on their relative satisfaction and potential future needs. Any non-billable hours spent in meetings of the practice group would not be accredited since the practice coach would normally be in attendance at those meetings as a member of the group anyway.

With respect to compensation provided, the practice coach does not receive position pay such that they are automatically compensated more highly for taking on the coaching role. Instead, the firm creates a budgetary fee credit for those hours spent on working with the practice group as if they were being spent on regular billable activity. They may even award the practice coach a bonus based on how well the group has done. Being evaluated only on individual performance (i.e. personal billings, business generation, etc.), can set up an irreconcilable tension between what the practice coach is being asked to do, and how they are measured.

What is most interesting about this approach is that the economic sacrifice to the firm and to the practice coach is negligible as the process of giving up 300 billable hours simply encourages the individual to delegate those billable matters that most likely should have been and could have been delegated in the first place.

For most firms, continuing in their current direction of not recognizing time spent managing will lead to either the best candidates staying away from the job or those taking it simply continuing to spend time devoted to their own personal success, rather than contributing meaningfully to the practice group's success.

THEY SEEK INPUT FROM THE PRACTICE COACH ON INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATION

How do you get very talented, self-absorbed, sometimes arrogant, incredibly bright people to collaborate and work together effectively? There are firms who operate out of a belief that the only answer lies in giving the practice group manager a big stick.

According to the prognosis of some: The failure rate of firms attempting to move to small practice teams will be high because those who are selected will not be given the management authority they desperately require. This issue of authority conjures up an image of a team of independent horses, latched together with a team leader sitting on the top, governing their performance -- with a whip.

Practice leaders who are given a whip by virtue of being able to significantly determine the compensation of group members may soon be regarded as simply authority figures, eventually seen as only favoring their friends or those that pay homage to their views, and perceived as something other than a real coach -- with the task of serving as the guardians of the long-term, the conscience of their colleagues; with the objective of helping advance the collective interests of the group while also helping individual professionals accomplish more than they might otherwise have accomplished.

Conversely, the opinions of the practice coach should not be disregarded where they may have some valuable input to share into the relatively invisible contributions of some members or the conscientious efforts of others that have not yet evidenced a measurable return.

The key phrase here is input. In the best groups the practice leader is asked to provide comment on each of the members of their group as one further factor to determining individual compensation.

EFFECTIVE PRACTICE GROUPS START OUT THROUGH A PROCESS OF SELF-SELECTION

When it comes to setting up their groups, many firms seem to want to demonstrate their seriousness by attaching every single professional to a number of different practice groups within the firm. They seek to make as a member of each group every possible partner who has some remote connection with the particular practice area, client or industry team. The result is group members who feel no real sense of attachment or personal commitment beyond having their names included in some practice area brochure.

This exercise should not be one of assigning home rooms of convenience or of drawing boxes on the back of an envelope and sticking names in them; but rather the exercise is one of allowing professionals to determine for themselves what group (or groups) they want to belong to, feel that they have developed the credentials to make a contribution to, and have the discretionary time available to forge a commitment.

One of the most fascinating exercises we had the privilege of orchestrating, occurred during a specific luncheon at a firm's annual Retreat. This firm was intent on wanting to introduce the concept of having industry groups within their firm. At the partners lunch we had placed on every table a prominent sign that identified a specific industry that this firm had some experience in serving. The professionals were then invited to sit at whichever table they found personally most appealing. You can well imagine the scuffle that transpired as they examined each option and looked to where their colleagues were choosing to sit.

During the lunch they were assigned some basic discussion topics:

• What clients and experiences have we each had? (What have each of us learned about working with this industry that others around the table may not know?)
• What are the Top 3 emerging issues facing companies in this industry? (What is it that is keeping key executives awake at night?)
• What is it that we are uniquely able to offer this industry, that is of value, and that these prospects / clients can. t get from any other firm?
• What benefits could we get from working together, and if there would be any benefit to us in exploring further discussions together on this industry - what specifically is our next step?

The most effective practice groups are developed by those firm leaders who find ways to harness the talents of seemingly independent-minded professionals in such a manner as to set them free to do their best collaborative work.

THE BEST CONSCIOUSLY ADDRESS WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?

While we instinctively know that any professional that can supplement their individual skills by bringing to bear the collective expertise of others is going to be more valuable to clients; few firms consciously invest the time to explore this benefit with their people. We seem to act as if that were a given and as if all of the partners clearly understand and appreciate what could be achieved through effectively organizing into practice groups.

However, the best teams seem to invest some time early in the process to address this basic issue with their people -- the question of: What's in it for me and why should I join a practice group in the first place?

When we have asked of groups of lawyers: What benefits might you expect to get out of practicing with a group of like-minded individuals with a common purpose -- that you couldn. t get if you were practicing by yourself? -- the type of answers that we are likely to hear, include:

• The group could serve to provide a sense of community if people agreed to work together and become mutually supportive.
• The group could be a source of work for me if we were to engage in some joint-marketing and cross selling activities.
• The group could help us all develop a perception of bench strength in that we would have a critical mass with meaningful presence and brand name in our marketplace.
• The group could provide a conduit for intellectual exchange whereby I could gain access to others' skills, bounce some ideas around or get a quick favor.
• Together we could cooperate in developing support systems, train juniors and share work product all of which would make my work more efficient and my life easier.

What this should suggest is that while practice groups may have been initially organized for strictly marketing reasons, there is a much greater scope of benefits that could be obtained. We find that if practice groups do not invest the time to answer this one to the satisfaction of their professionals, little else matters.

HIGH PERFORMANCE GROUPS BREED A SENSE OF EXCLUSIVITY

Many managing partners in our discussions have informed us of how, in their firms, they tend to favor having their professionals belong to any number of multiple practice groups. As one managing partner expressed it, We tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Our research suggests that that it just the opposite of what the high performing practice groups do.

If you think about it, the harder one has to struggle for something, the more precious it becomes. This holds true whenever we are pursuing membership in some organization that is perceived to be elite or special. Belonging to a practice group then, doesn't count for much if almost anyone can drift in or out of the group at will. However, if lawyers have to strive to make it through rigorous selection standards, or have to continue to strive to prove their worthiness, they persuade themselves that being part of this practice group matters. Being allowed to join (or remain) becomes something special.

Combining the right talent for a group means understanding the chemistry of what is needed to make an elusive mix of aggressive, self-motivated egos work together. The best groups determine who are committed members and who are not. Being part of a practice group of truly committed, exceptional professionals has a profound impact on each member. Members soon observe that being included is a recognition of their own excellence and everyone in the group becomes engaged in a desire to perform as well as, or better than, one's colleagues in order to curry the esteem of people for whom one has the highest regard.

We have observed that the best practice groups create that sense of exclusiveness. They make membership into their practice group a big deal by ensuring that there is some acknowledged criteria for admission -- a minimum level of substantive experience, a willingness to freely share client contacts and knowledge, a commitment to attend meetings (on time), to complete projects; perhaps even by having each professional provide the group with their written commitment to live up to certain acknowledged standards. They find that stiff criteria for admission and for retention causes the weak-hearted to deselect themselves.

Alternatively, we have seen groups struggle with the drag weight of volunteered practice group members who would rather be out golfing with their clients than participating on the team. In many cases these are individuals who always claim to be too busy or act as if they are convinced that they have a better approach to satisfying their professional and career objectives. Normally, they may be reticent to drop out lest they experience some repercussions.

The best groups declare in no uncertain terms, You have our permission to leave! These groups know that there is no gain from forcing anyone to play when they really aren't interested, and have been granted the authority to give those the boot who will not make a commitment that can be counted upon.

As one practice coach summarized it for us, When a group feels it's special, it can do great things. This approach incorporates one of the most fundamental motivators throughout human history -- pride in belonging.

[End of Part I. To view remainder of article, go to Herding Cats into Groups Part II]