Stop Pampering, Start Pulling: How to Lead for the Long Game
It generally does not take long to work out who has the power and authority in a law firm. Whatever the firm’s size, there is usually a small group of partners who hold the greatest influence and control. Optimally this is the group to whom the rest of the partners look for guidance and steerage, but occasionally (and sub-optimally) they can also be the group considered as a self-perpetuating oligarchy, ruling by tight control and even by fear.
Consensus management is difficult nowadays. Firms can easily get bogged down by rounds of endless and circular discussion, or by the firm’s desire for perfection. This results in management projects getting delayed by nit-picking, repetitive discussions and the micro-management of detail. Wrong or muddled decision-making then takes place, based on a failure to differentiate the wood from the trees.
The problem is that, unless carefully done, firms can then tend to flip flop from a gentle consensus model into an aggressively controlling style of macho-management in which gung-ho gun-slinging partners dominate by brute force and intimidation.
Whatever the management structure, decision makers in partnerships face an unenviable dilemma. They need to speed up and professionalise decision-making, whilst at the same time preserving the essential elements of partnership, including the need for huge amounts of communication and consultation together with at least some element of consensus. The inclination of many law firms towards a more explicitly corporate structure carries the attendant risk that a ‘command and control’ style of ‘corpocracy’ can follow – rules-oriented, hierarchical, status conscious, with formal structures designed to restrict the flow of information.
Part of any partner’s development and training should be concentrated on finding the right style of leadership and management to suit both the character of the partner and the needs and profile of the organisation. There are many ways of describing the various different possible leadership styles. One that I have found helpful for over twenty years is the four different styles or attitudes of leading change known as ‘push’, ‘pull’, ‘pummel’ and ‘pamper’ that I first learned from Dr Harvey Robbins[1]. I have seen most firms use all four approaches all the time, but often in an haphazard and unplanned manner. An awareness and understanding of the different styles (and when to use them) can help all those involved in the leadership and management of law firms to develop their own methodologies and approaches.
Push: Push is most commonly known for its use of the burning platform. It is the deliberate use of a certain level of force or fear in order to galvanize positive action or results. With ‘push’ the leader seeks to use the stick as much as the carrot. It involves, therefore, a certain amount of directive management but falls short of bullying. Its main advantage for a law firm is that it is a heavily performance management-oriented system focussing on efficiency, results and measurement. It makes partners and staff aware that adverse consequences will ensue in cases of underperformance or failure to hit targets. It is therefore extremely useful in the short to medium term, particularly in a firm’s recovery or improvement phase. It has to be recognised that ‘push’ does not always make for a happy ship because it has a heavy degree of direction and control, with the accent on improvement, reform, and the work ethic, as evidenced, for instance, by high billable hours. It can therefore cause anxiety and loss of morale, if carried to an extreme or used in isolation for prolonged periods. On its own, it is a limited methodology or style and is at its most effective when combined with ‘pull’.
Pull: ‘Pull’ is a generically enlightened methodology and appeals to partners’ interest as much as their intellect. In the long term, most partners should be aiming to use as much ‘pull’ as they can. If ‘push’ is the stick, ‘pull’ is the carrot. This is because ‘pull’ operates at a more inspirational level to engage the imagination and to motivate. It is ‘push’ plus empowerment. Under this model, partners motivate or, indeed, scare themselves.
It permanently alters the way people think of themselves, as it encourages career planning and ambition. It is the hardest way to achieve results but has the best long-term prospects. Perhaps most importantly it carries with it all that is best in terms of progressive personnel practices, with a focus on people development and the creation and maintenance of positive performance-oriented and client-focused cultures. ‘Pull’ encourages partners to look after their people, on the basis that profit will follow. ‘Pull’ also emphasises relationships, culture, democracy and teamwork
Quality of work and career development are also important elements under ‘pull’. With this approach, partners will attempt to find better and more stimulating work for themselves and their people and to work in a positive atmosphere where teamwork and fun are stressed and social interaction is encouraged.
Pummel: This is the application of martial law, useful in times of emergency. It involves control, forced change, the reign of terror. ‘Pummel’ is the environment of the dictator, or where a board or power caucus within the partnership exercises heavy control with a tight hand. There is practically no positive encouragement to perform, but maximum negative stimulation and even a degree of bullying to enforce compliance
As an example, partners in one USA firm were some years ago described as ‘being at the mercy of a small unelected and self-perpetuating executive committee’.
Whilst it can be occasionally necessary to employ dictatorial measures, ‘pummel’ only usually works well in the short term. In a firm where there is endemic underperformance, lacklustre partner accountability, and consistent failures to adhere to agreed or sensible internal disciplines, a ‘short sharp shock’ spell of ‘pummel’ can be a useful way of kick-starting a period of change and revival. A firm which wishes to impose a period of martial law will need to impose heavy internal controls and to rely on enforcement and performance management, and by the application of a small carrot, and a big stick. This only tends to work in short spells and it is important to move as quickly as possible to mix in other styles.
The management team will need to factor in the probability that paranoia and insecurity will grow quite swiftly under such a regime, and to recognise that in general a prolonged period of ‘pummel’ inevitably leads to long-term unhappiness and demotivation.
Pamper: Pamper can be useful as a short-term reward, but hopeless as a long-term approach. It is a regime of chaos and anarchy. Sadly I see ‘pamper’ too many times as the default management style in far too many firms. ‘Pamper’ involves the culture of entitlement and proprietorship. ‘Pamper’ is an environment in which partners ‘do their own thing’ and have little or no accountability to anybody. In the extreme example of a ‘pamper’ environment, there are few standards or internal disciplines, little sharing of information, clients or people and few quality checks. A ‘pamper’ partnership deed is one where one or a few partners can hold the partnership to ransom – for example, where no partner can be expelled for consistent underperformance or where an overwhelming majority is needed to effect any change. It enhances the old-style illusion of cradle to grave security. It can be seen as ‘pull’ minus accountability. The problem is that, in firms that rely on maximum empowerment, there is often also no ultimate sanction and little fear.
In the long term therefore ‘pamper’ will foster slack performance, with scant measurement or evaluation.
Organisations tend to use all four approaches (pummel, pamper, push, pull) inconsistently and without coordination. Pummel (strict enforcement) and pamper (indulgence) are only effective in the very short term, with pummel suited to crises and pamper useful as a brief reward but harmful if prolonged. Equally, the combination of ‘pamper’ with ‘pummel’ or ‘push’ can engender a toxic environment in which the favoured few are seen to be pampered and the rest of the firm are pummelled or pushed. Push (driving change) works in the short to medium term, while pull (inspiring alignment with values) is the most sustainable method for long-term organisational change
The point about ‘push’, ‘pull’, ‘pummel’ and ‘pamper’ is that there is a time and place for all of them, but ‘pummel’ and ‘pamper’ should be extremes for occasional and short-term use only. Firms often spend much time debating and deciding their governance structures and management systems, but the style of management which is adopted from day to day tends often to be developed by default and without much thought, largely as a result of the natural idiosyncrasies of the individuals involved in the firm’s leadership. It works best if firms devote energy and discussion on deciding what works best in the context of the firm, its leaders and the conditions in which the firm practices. Additionally other issues clearly need to be taken into account, including the firm’s maturity, its strategy, its culture and traditions and any imperative for short-term change or dramatic improvement. Hence, managers have to learn to adapt their management style to the needs of the firm – and this is easier said than done. The importance, however, of establishing a coherent approach is not just to achieve some key objectives for the firm, but to help the firm become a happier and more stimulating place in which the firm’s people are persuaded to continue to invest their careers.
[1] Robbins & Finley (1996) “Why Change Doesn’t Work” Peterson’s/Pacesetter Books ISBN 1-56079-944-7