by Patrick J. McKenna

Identifying the attributes that distinguish effective practice group performance.

THE BEST ARE OBSESSED ABOUT LIMITING THEIR SIZE

Bigger does not always mean better, and nowhere is that more evident then when it comes to assessing practice group effectiveness. Observations drawn from our research confirms that one of the best ways to ensure failure is to allow membership to grow beyond a small, core working group.

We have seen practice groups in some larger law firms with forty, sixty, and even in excess of a hundred professionals, even though everyone should have recognized instinctively that practice groups that large can not be productive. It's even money that the participants in any meetings of those large groups are more concerned about the quality of their antiperspirants than the actual substance of the discussions. And, in an effort to avoid offending anyone, practice leaders continue to add people. At the end of the day it becomes a high price to pay for trying to make sure that no one is feeling left out.

While the larger practice group may be viewed as the means to bring more minds to bear on the growth and development of the practice, it soon becomes evident that not all of those minds actually have any significant contributions to bear. Research studies on group size in industry, shows that as the size of any group increases, so too individual productivity decreases. And, life in a professional firm is no different. As a practice group increases in size, an individual professional's opportunity and ability to effectively participate decreases dramatically.

Our observations also confirm that as the number of practice group members increases, individual accountability decreases. In fact, the more people that become involved in any practice group, the less responsible any of them feels for the groups performance, the less commitment any shows to following through on individual projects, and the less buy-in any professional has for the group's success or failure, since they sense that there will always be other partners around to pick up the slack.

However, when any lawyer believes that their individual performance is important to the group's cumulative efforts and that their progress is visible to their peers, they are more likely to be concerned for how their peers view them. As a result lawyers are more likely to produce when active in smaller practice groups, than they are on a larger team, where they can easily get lost in the crowd.

Further, we have observed that the larger the practice group the more likely it is that a few power partners or strong personalities dominate the group's agenda, meeting discussions, and the decision making process. In larger groups many professionals may choose to remain passive, hesitant to voice their ideas and opinions for fear of criticism, unwilling to disagree with the leader or give each other honest feedback, and not fully confident that they can depend on each other. Therefore, the level of interpersonal trust, always an important issue within the group can be damaged as the size increases. Conversely, smaller groups tend to enhance trust as more members feel free to participate.

We are not suggesting that every practice group has a one-size-fits-all predetermined structure, and we are sensitive to the needs of those firms who are seriously attempting to build a national practice team comprised of members from various geographic regions. The optimal size of any practice group may depend upon the specific client-market segment being targeted or upon exploring the right balance between developing active local and national configurations.

For example, the critical mass required for any new group attempting to develop a practice in an emerging industry sub-segment may be quite appropriate having no more than two or three professionals in its early stages. However, for the more mature practice group, empirical research strongly suggests that ten to fifteen professionals is a nice size for effectiveness. There is simply no getting around the fact that small practice groups work best.

What to do? Here are some options to consider that we have observed other firms using successfully:

• Reorganize existing groups into smaller practice units.

One tactic may be to break up larger teams into smaller practice-specific splinter groups. In this model, the high technology industry group might become the computer technology group, the telecommunications group, and the biotechnology group; irrespective of location. Or, the litigation group could be sub-divided into the securities litigation group, the product liability group, the professional malpractice group, and so forth. These smaller practice groups then provide a real opportunity for members to utilize their expertise and have an impact on the outcome.

• Protect the core and institute a resource member approach.

It may not be easy to remove some individuals from some groups, but the long term impacts on productivity makes this effort critical. A core group should consist of only those partners whose full-time practice efforts are involved in the specialized area. The core group meets regularly and makes decisions on the direction of the practice. Concurrently, practice coaches remain free to invite others to assist and participate as substantive experts on specific client projects or to help get stuff done as the need may arise -- but like the darting seagull, the resource member drops their load and departs.

Many practice groups may be prone to the temptation of getting larger in an effort to be effective. They do this despite the fact that common sense suggests that smaller is better.

That's not to suggest that obsessing on having smaller practice groups is the be all and end all -- small is beautiful. Rather -- getting better is beautiful! However, in too many cases, we observe that getting bigger becomes the substitute for getting better.

HIGH PERFORMANCE GROUPS COLLECTIVELY SET STANDARDS FOR MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

One problem in most practice groups is professionals who don't follow through on what they say they are going to do.

Take the practice group meeting as an example. It was to have started at 4:00 PM. Each partner who sticks their head into the boardroom, drops their papers off at their favorite seating place while quickly scanning the room to see if there is any other partner present whom they feel is more powerful than themselves. Seeing none, their papers now signify that they were on time and they quickly rush back to their offices on the pretext of just one client call. Then there is that insecure partner who brings their work into the meeting as if to impress upon everyone just how busy they really are. And of course there is the partner who accepted responsibility for that important project at the last meeting, who upon two minutes into their action report has everyone realizing that they really have no specific action to report.

The irony is that in discussion after discussion, we are struck by the extent to which practice group members have high expectations for each other, expect that everyone will contribute to the extent that each is capable, and become distressed when certain members or the group itself is not performing well and when a member pursues individual objectives at the expense of the group. In fact one of the most common complaints we have surfaced in our work with practice groups is that members are disturbed by a practice leader who is unwilling to deal directly and effectively with self-serving or noncontributing members.

If the practice leader isn't to be given a big stick (like compensation) to scold those group members who are tardy for meetings, consistently inattentive, argumentative or not meeting project deadlines, how do you compel professionals to do anything?

Every championship team, in every endeavor, has attained their championship status largely by having some hard and fast, non-negotiable rules that everyone agrees to abide by. The best practice groups seem to formulate together and commit to (writing) a set of sensible rules for how their championship team will work together and self-manage, by bringing about constructive peer pressure.

In high performance teams the players invest time together to define how they want to work together, how they each want to be treated, and end up with guidelines for how they will police themselves. They establish day-to-day performance standards that represent what all group members (including the practice coach) should expect from one another on a daily basis. Such standards after being developed by the group place the responsibility for appropriate team behavior squarely in the lap of each member. Professionals then hold themselves, and each other, accountable. If someone does something inconsistent with the defined standards, anyone in the group can say: Excuse me, didn't we all agree that... In fact, effective practice coaches make sure that the group even addresses it's collective mind to what the consequences will be if any of the group. s standards are violated -- after all, if there are no consequences, there probably are no standards. The group then collectively manages the standards, and the standards manage the practice group.

For those practice group who do not deliberately set operating guidelines, we notice how the group's norms (habits) quickly become the guidelines by default and the inevitable anarchy that results.

(Concerning how a firm should go about removing any compensation obstacles -- how to encourage the members of the group to work together on courting prospective clients such that they each feel that there is something in it for them to work together. The concluding theme was that they should either agree ahead of time [in general] on the sharing of origination credit [i.e. ten members of the practice group = 10% each] but does want to develop effective practice groups and has recognized that their traditional compensation can pose some obstacles.

If you've got to have an origination credit system, then I think it has to be full share for everyone involved on the deal. [This leads to double counting, but it leaves the incentive open to bring someone else in to help if they can add any value at all. It's what Goldman does, by the way.])

The best performing practice teams rely on a process of mutual accountability, a sense of discipline grounded in the principle of individual accountability. The team learns to hold its members mutually accountable for collective results.

THE BEST PRACTICE GROUPS MEET FREQUENTLY

Whether it be performing arts groups, sports teams or professional practice groups, the two key areas for success involve consistently learning and improving. There is a strong team sense of shared experience when practice groups learn and develop together as they confront the organizational, profitability, and business development issues facing them. Once practice group members get working together there is a great release of energy as professionals begin to believe in the team and in what they can accomplish.

In exploring how to enhance this sense of shared experience and encourage members of practice groups to freely collaborate together, we were struck by how often any firm leader who cites one particular practice group that stands head-and-shoulders above the others, then tells us about how of course they meet weekly!

In sessions with practice coaches, we have often asked of them to think back upon a time when they were a member of some highly successful group; be it a social organization, debate club, family unit going through a challenging experience or whatever. We asked them to tell us about that experience and what specifically made it a successful, effective group experience. We conclude the exercise with asking them if the group started off being highly successful and effective, or grew and evolved into that state over time.

Common practice in too many firms is to have to provide an attractive luncheon as the incentive to getting partners to take time away from their busy schedules to meet. However, intense loyalty is greater in any group where the group is structured such that individuals are dependent upon the success of the group for their own success. High performance practice groups meet frequently (weekly) for short (one-hour) highly focused interactions. They have specific agendas (written) calling for action reports (submitted in advance) and often rotate within the group the responsibility for facilitating discussions. Some of these meetings will be dedicated to short-term (quarterly) practice group planning; conducting post-mortem reviews of specific client transactions and substantive learnings; hosting a member of the group, client executive or some other practice leader invited to brief the members on new developments; discussing efforts to obtain additional work from existing clients; and so forth.

We instinctively recognize that teamwork is what happens as people do, as they interact with others and take decisive action. The best practice groups find the means for encouraging their members to meet frequently.

HIGH PERFORMANCE GROUPS TAKE ACTION IN INCREMENTAL STEPS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Without something to show for their efforts, the most talented assemblage becomes little more than a social club or therapy group. As one managing partner expressed it best, Yes, our practice groups meet, and they meet on a fairly regular basis, but I must tell you, when all is said and done, there seems to be a hell of a lot more said than is ever done!

Good practice coaches instinctively recognize the Achilles heel that just naturally exists within any professional services firm. They know that the danger either lies in our propensity to discuss and study issues until they bleed, but never take action; or in allowing someone to take on such a huge project that there is no hope that they will ever be successful in implementation.

We have observed that in those groups consistently shooting-the-light-out, practice coaches operate on the basis of:

• Having lawyers voluntarily choose that project that most interests them.

Professionals cannot be drafted or assigned to specific projects or tasks that arise during group meetings. You cannot force or coerce professionals to get with the program. The primary task here is not to lead the cats to water. The task is to make them thirsty! Practice coaches conclude meetings by going around the table and having each member take responsibility for a specific action task. The essence is in having members of the practice group become sufficiently motivated enough to want to take on a project or task that will have an important and immediate benefit for the group as well as their own personal circumstances.

• Ensuring that each specific task is small and doable.

It is a common observance that when professionals get caught-up in the process of generating good ideas or are stimulated by an idea that they like, they immediately want to volunteer to change the world. Good practice coaches temper that enthusiasm by reminding partners that their billable work will always take priority and by determining with them what they think they can really accomplish over the next little while. The practice coaches role is to ensure that the task is very small (What is the first step that should be tackled to start this project?), carefully defined (What can we expect to get from you by the next meeting?), and completely capable of being accomplished. The best practice leaders know that it is important to return to the next meeting with people reporting small successes, not excuses. It is far better to move forward with many small steps, then not to have moved forward at all, but have lots of good ideas and the best of intentions.

• Identifying progress and celebrating successes.

At the personal level, if people work especially hard and devote long hours to a project that eventually goes unnoticed, they will soon minimize their efforts. At the practice group level, if expectations are exceeded but there is no means of expressing pride in those achievements, it becomes a hollow victory. Good coaches know that it is important to recognize the outcome of present actions as they play a major role in determining future actions. Their primary goal is to build an early success to continue the momentum.

The word leadership is derived from the verb to act, to begin, to set in motion. The best practice coaches are obsessed with a bias for action and know what can cumulatively be accomplished, over time, if each member of the group can be motivated to invest a modicum of their discretionary non-billable time in some small task that will advance the interests of that individual and the group.

If we think about it, as professionals we constantly face the issue of: so what's next? When we first set out we chose a profession, then a good school, and upon graduation we chose a good firm. Then we chose to become a partner. And after a long hard climb to finally being admitted into those sacred ranks, now many are suffering from -- been there, done that,...so what's next? I've successfully reached partnership, is that all there is?

Helen Keller once said, Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. We need to wake up our potential for higher forms of purpose. But how can we awaken? We usually do not wake up by ourselves. Most often, without something to shoot for, only a major crisis will get our attention. The fact is that satisfaction always leads to dissatisfaction! A professional existence without some form of challenge leads to a sparse and shallow existence.

Most energetic, ambitious professionals do not want to join a practice group, they want to join a crusade or join a movement -- something that has a larger meaning and gives them a sense of purpose about what they are doing. The problem is not that we are working so hard that we do not have time to look up. The problem is that we are working so hard because we do not want to look up! We are afraid that there is nothing to look up to -- no meaning, no purpose -- and that we are running on empty.

In interview after interview, focus group after focus group, and experience after experience, those practice groups that seem to develop and radiate a shoot-the-lights-out type attitude are those where the group collectively has found some great, compelling challenge to aim for.

The best practice coach is an individual not only working toward helping each member of the group become more successful, but looking for ways to invigorate the group as a whole toward accomplishing something they might not otherwise have focused upon. A real team must be deeply committed to some compelling challenge that not only provides a sense of direction to the members but also justifies and clarifies the kind of extra collective efforts required for the group to achieve its performance potential.

We have usually observed that sense of challenge to be manifested in any combination of the following:

• a specific, high profile project. The group may be playing for high stakes, racing toward the completion of a time sensitive objective, or aiming to achieve an accomplishment that redefines the practice;
• a perceived Cause or Crusade. Some of the best practice groups believe that they can change the world; act as if they were on a crusade. The strength of their belief is what brings extraordinary cohesion and energy to their quest. Members of the group have become committed to either effect significant change (explore a positive course of action) or arrest an economic condition (divert a negative course of action);
• the perception (real, created, or imagined) of a rival to be vilified -- a competitor to be vanquished. Sometimes a very important ingredient to achieving success is in having a competent, tireless enemy. Even the most noble pursuit can be catalyzed by an onerous competitor. Some of the most successful groups have a shared dedication among their members to defeating a specific adversary, which is often more motivating than any written mission statement could be;
• a sense of themselves as rebellious underdogs. They view themselves as a feisty collection of mavericks with fresh ideas for how to serve clients, or a spunky little group of upstarts determined to set new directions. Their sense of operating at the fringes gives them a scrappiness that feeds their obsession to win;
• a dream that members of the practice group share of creating something new, exploring new precedents or solving some tough problems, and achieving some sense of professional recognition. The thing that matters most is that the members of the practice group possess a modicum of trust in each other, a belief that each are capable of adding value, and a genuine desire to create something new. The act of creating something new can encompass solving a problem, overcoming an obstacle, or discovering something of value.

When a practice group is in pursuit of some compelling challenge, especially an important one, other considerations seem to fade into the background. People develop a sense of camaraderie as they feel they are going through something together to achieve something significant. There is a alchemical, almost obsessive quality; a sense of creation that transcends individual expertise when a group of professionals with complementary skills interact to create something that none had previously possessed or could have accomplished on their own.

Having a compelling challenge is having an expressed image of a desired state of affairs that inspires action. Practice groups need a sense of urgency or significance. When a practice group's efforts become diluted by having too many competing goals, individual goals take priority over team goals.

THE BEST GROUPS HAVE A FORMAL CLIENT SCREENING PROCESS

There is an old adage that says, We are known by the company we keep. This is very evident among the best practice groups we have observed.

In the best groups every new client is put before a formal screening process to determine whether the practice group has the ability to handle the matter and add significant value; whether the assignment presents sufficient challenge to the group's members; whether the client offers any sense of prestige, new and needed experience, or something other than income; and whether the partners of the practice group believe they would enjoy the relationship and hence serve the client with enthusiasm.

While this process may never be perfect and while there may be economic times when any new revenue may be regarded as needed revenue, it is the simple act of having a formal screening process that is notable. In these groups it is there as an inescapable reminder that if they aspire to become something significant in their marketplace, they need to constantly assess for themselves the quality of the client and the work that they are accepting. They also believe that each client transaction should offer a developmental component in that professionals (especially juniors) get the types and numbers of assignments that will help them develop.

Concurrently, we see these same groups devoting some modicum of time to collectively reviewing whether there are clients that because of their uninteresting work, unrealistic demands, inability to pay or some other factor, should be referred out to some other firm who may be more interested in serving them. They act from a perceived need to constantly upgrade the level of clientele and any types of work that are believed to be out-of-character with the calibre of pracice group that they aspire to become.

When in today's highly competitive environment most professionals operate as though they will shoot at anything that moves and skin anything that stumbles into their traps -- Catch it, kill it, skin it, eat it -- we become mesmerised by those practice groups that define their culture by defining what they will shoot at and what they will allow to remain in their traps. Thus, it is not the process of attracting clients that defines the culture of the high performance team, it is the process of being highly selective in accepting and rejecting clients.

The best practice groups teach us that it is as important to ask, Whom do I choose not to have as my client? as it is to determine, Whom do I choose to have as a client?

As one practice coach summarized it for us: We should not accept a client unless we have some basis for believing that we can deliver real value. We must always bring the client something extra -- be it a problem-solving competence, experience, technical know-how or objective counsel. We should not extend the relationship unless we believe that the services provided will be worth the client. s fees, expenses and time involved.

THEY FOCUS ON FUTURE CLIENT NEED

Conventional wisdom and best practices has it that we should engage in the discipline of continually surveying our clients to determine their level of satisfaction with our services. This activity will result in providing us with some valuable insights (albeit, backward-looking) into how we might better serve our constituents.

Progressive practices are equally concerned with ensuring that each partner is conversant about those current issues which for their most important clients fall into the category of: What is keeping those key executives awake at nights.

One of the final interesting observations we make about the high performance practice groups is a common interest in pursuing not just what their client's priorities are today, but what the client's priorities will be tomorrow.

Both in informal discussions among members of these groups and in the more formal agenda deliberations, time and again attention is focused on how to determine and reach the client's silent needs (those that are poorly defined and not always able to be communicated), the client's yet to be recognized needs (those issues and solutions at the fringe that represent what the median of marketplace behavior might become), and how specifically the group can explore new and creative ways to add value.

While we can appreciate that accurately predicting the future is impossible, indulging in a modest degree of prophecy or contemplation encourages a proactive stance with today's clients, builds for a practice group mind-set that anticipates change, rather than resisting it; and an attitude of being somewhat innovative rather than waiting for precedent.

CONCLUSIONS

Simply labeling a collection of professionals a practice group does not make it one.

A real practice group is a small cadre of professionals with complimentary skills who are committed to the achievement of a compelling challenge, have predefined standards of performance, an implementable action plan for which they hold themselves mutually accountable to produce, and a practice coach in place to help each member become more successful than they might otherwise have become.

The best practice groups teach us something about effective leadership, inspired professionals and performance that is truly worthy of being emulated.