The Management Wisdom of Midlevel Associates

As midlevel associates make the transition to senior associate ranks, they gain wisdom in managing matters, both up to partners and down to juniors. Their wisdom reveals a key weakness in law firms ' the poor leadership and management skills of partners. But since no one talks openly about this, associates must constantly face crisis management and do-overs. The result is a hidden cost to the firm and its clients, not to mention crushing stress for associates.

The wisdom I refer to has been gathered in more than 20 years of training associates, counsel and partners on topics like matter management, team leadership, delegation and feedback. In many of those programs, I run a simple exercise that puts participants in pairs. I ask one person to brainstorm a list of the behaviors and traits of effective leaders. I ask the other to list the behaviors of ineffective leaders. We then discuss the two lists, and the habits that the associates should aspire to as future leaders and matter managers. I have collected many of these lists over the years, and they no longer surprise me. What does surprise me is the continuing tolerance that even top firms have for poor matter management and leadership.

The good news is that associates know effective leadership when they see it. Every firm I have worked with has partners whom associates much prefer to follow. If those great leadership behaviors got as much attention as business development practices, many firms would be on associates' “best places to work” lists. Here, I choose to focus on the negative behaviors because to fix something, you have to know it's broken. No firm is immune from partners who lead poorly and from the costs of doing nothing about it.

'Ineffective Leader' Lists

I have grouped the comments on these associate “ineffective leader” lists into four categories:

1. Delegation and Supervision Skills.
2. Accessibility.
3. Attitudes.
4. Feedback Skills.

I then examine some of the hidden costs in the context of increased client demand for better legal project management.

Delegation and Supervision Skills

Associates report that many problems begin with poor delegation. Here are some sample comments on ineffectiveness: 1) “Not taking time to explain the case at the outset”; 2) “No explanation of client goals”; 3) “No big picture given”; and 4) “Assumes prior knowledge when that is inappropriate to experience level.”

In my delegation skill training, I ask associates to take responsibility as well ' to speak up about their experience level or to ask about the big picture. Partners often do not seem to have the patience in delegating, although an extra five minutes could produce much better results. One simple thing that every partner can do ' ask for a summary of the assignment, then clarify or add tips as the associate is doing this. In studying legal project management, we have found that this summary step reduces write-offs significantly.

Supervision also brings critical comments. Here are some quotes: 1) “Micromanages to the point that it interferes with [my] ability to get work done”; 2) “Focuses on minor issues instead of long-term issues”; 3) “Doesn't give updates of relevant information”; and 4) “Does not check in periodically.”

The message is that supervisors need to find that balance between micromanaging and checking out altogether. As leadership expert and author Ken Blanchard has explained, leadership is “situational.” Likewise, delegation and supervision is situational ' some associates will need more detailed delegation and supervision, while others require a lighter touch. A good supervisor extends trust, but checks in to make herself available for questions and new information.

Accessibility

The most frequent item on the “ineffective leader” list is inaccessibility. The partner has given a deadline and given the associate limited authority to deal with the client. Now the client asks the associate for the answer or the memo, but the associate fears responding without the partner's review. Here is what we hear about such a situation: 1) “Not accessible for questions”; 2) “Not available to discuss new developments”; 3) “Creates bottlenecks for decisions”; and 4) “Not available to make decisions as deadlines approach, thus forcing missed deadlines.”

Associates also report that they waste a lot of time in “stalking” inaccessible partners. They also share a variety of often-bizarre “stalking” methods. The answer to this problem doesn't need detailed prescriptions as much as attentiveness. Partners, who is reporting to you and what do they need from you, and when?

Partner Attitudes

Although my pairs exercise calls for behaviors, I see a lot of attitudes on the “ineffective” list. In AmLaw top 100 firms, this is the respondents' take on attitudes: 1) “Inspires fear”; 2) “Comes across as unapproachable”; 3) “Gives inadequate instructions, then becomes angry when work not done to [her] liking”; 4) “Freaks out, shows his anxiety”; 5) “Paranoid”; 6) “Short-tempered”; and 7) “Not a good motivator.”

When I interview partners about culture, they often refer to the “no jerks rule.” That is, the firm does not tolerate bad attitudes and behaviors. Evidence like the comments above demonstrates that the rule is often honored in the breach. To turn this around, senior leaders have to be aware of the true culture ' from the wise associates' point of view. Then they have to have some difficult conversations with certain partners and give associates a confidential forum for passing up feedback about matter management attitudes.

Feedback Skills

Associates will only climb the learning curve if they receive effective feedback. Many leading professional services firms now expect 70% of on-the-job learning to take place through coaching and feedback. Despite this, some partners expect associates to learn without much partner involvement. We see these comments frequently: 1) “Poor or no feedback”; 2) “Poor communicator to team and client”; 3) “Does not share the process or rationale behind the work; expects blind obedience from junior associates”; 4) No feedback on assignments”; and 5) “Does not thank team members.”

No likes to give negative feedback, so it is best avoided altogether, in the minds of some partners. Like any other unfamiliar skill, giving constructive feedback can be learned. Holding a difficult conversation can be learned. In my programs, partners who learn to give “teaching feedback” report a greater readiness and confidence about giving feedback. Feedback is the lifeblood for developing associates and it is a core skill for all partners and senior associates.

The Cost of Not Paying Attention

In midlevel and senior associate training, when associates feel free to comment, they quickly identify the costs of poor matter management ' write-offs, duplicative work, higher costs for the clients, missed deadlines, and a regular state of crisis. The ineffective partners seem to have little sense of their impact on associates ' stress, loss of respect, avoidance, and slow career progress. Despite the recession, lateral recruiters are calling again, and associates in this bind will choose a firm with a better leadership environment.

Finally, in our work on legal project management, we involve associates in the dialogue about improved work processes, and managing to alternative fees. Their suggested improvements are always the mirror opposite of the deficiencies I have noted above. They point out the many efficiencies that could be achieved by better planning, delegation and monitoring of matters. The cost of not bringing all partners up to a level of basic leadership effectiveness is a cost to a firm's legal project management reputation and capacity. That reputation and capacity is exactly what general counsel and other clients are asking for in today's new normal.

David Cruickshank ([email protected]) is a partner in the consulting firm Edge International. He advises law firms on practice management, leadership development, and legal project management. Phone: 212-734-2818.

As midlevel associates make the transition to senior associate ranks, they gain wisdom in managing matters, both up to partners and down to juniors. Their wisdom reveals a key weakness in law firms ' the poor leadership and management skills of partners. But since no one talks openly about this, associates must constantly face crisis management and do-overs. The result is a hidden cost to the firm and its clients, not to mention crushing stress for associates.

The wisdom I refer to has been gathered in more than 20 years of training associates, counsel and partners on topics like matter management, team leadership, delegation and feedback. In many of those programs, I run a simple exercise that puts participants in pairs. I ask one person to brainstorm a list of the behaviors and traits of effective leaders. I ask the other to list the behaviors of ineffective leaders. We then discuss the two lists, and the habits that the associates should aspire to as future leaders and matter managers. I have collected many of these lists over the years, and they no longer surprise me. What does surprise me is the continuing tolerance that even top firms have for poor matter management and leadership.

The good news is that associates know effective leadership when they see it. Every firm I have worked with has partners whom associates much prefer to follow. If those great leadership behaviors got as much attention as business development practices, many firms would be on associates' “best places to work” lists. Here, I choose to focus on the negative behaviors because to fix something, you have to know it's broken. No firm is immune from partners who lead poorly and from the costs of doing nothing about it.

'Ineffective Leader' Lists

I have grouped the comments on these associate “ineffective leader” lists into four categories:

1. Delegation and Supervision Skills.
2. Accessibility.
3. Attitudes.
4. Feedback Skills.

I then examine some of the hidden costs in the context of increased client demand for better legal project management.

Delegation and Supervision Skills

Associates report that many problems begin with poor delegation. Here are some sample comments on ineffectiveness: 1) “Not taking time to explain the case at the outset”; 2) “No explanation of client goals”; 3) “No big picture given”; and 4) “Assumes prior knowledge when that is inappropriate to experience level.”

In my delegation skill training, I ask associates to take responsibility as well ' to speak up about their experience level or to ask about the big picture. Partners often do not seem to have the patience in delegating, although an extra five minutes could produce much better results. One simple thing that every partner can do ' ask for a summary of the assignment, then clarify or add tips as the associate is doing this. In studying legal project management, we have found that this summary step reduces write-offs significantly.

Supervision also brings critical comments. Here are some quotes: 1) “Micromanages to the point that it interferes with [my] ability to get work done”; 2) “Focuses on minor issues instead of long-term issues”; 3) “Doesn't give updates of relevant information”; and 4) “Does not check in periodically.”

The message is that supervisors need to find that balance between micromanaging and checking out altogether. As leadership expert and author Ken Blanchard has explained, leadership is “situational.” Likewise, delegation and supervision is situational ' some associates will need more detailed delegation and supervision, while others require a lighter touch. A good supervisor extends trust, but checks in to make herself available for questions and new information.

Accessibility

The most frequent item on the “ineffective leader” list is inaccessibility. The partner has given a deadline and given the associate limited authority to deal with the client. Now the client asks the associate for the answer or the memo, but the associate fears responding without the partner's review. Here is what we hear about such a situation: 1) “Not accessible for questions”; 2) “Not available to discuss new developments”; 3) “Creates bottlenecks for decisions”; and 4) “Not available to make decisions as deadlines approach, thus forcing missed deadlines.”

Associates also report that they waste a lot of time in “stalking” inaccessible partners. They also share a variety of often-bizarre “stalking” methods. The answer to this problem doesn't need detailed prescriptions as much as attentiveness. Partners, who is reporting to you and what do they need from you, and when?

Partner Attitudes

Although my pairs exercise calls for behaviors, I see a lot of attitudes on the “ineffective” list. In AmLaw top 100 firms, this is the respondents' take on attitudes: 1) “Inspires fear”; 2) “Comes across as unapproachable”; 3) “Gives inadequate instructions, then becomes angry when work not done to [her] liking”; 4) “Freaks out, shows his anxiety”; 5) “Paranoid”; 6) “Short-tempered”; and 7) “Not a good motivator.”

When I interview partners about culture, they often refer to the “no jerks rule.” That is, the firm does not tolerate bad attitudes and behaviors. Evidence like the comments above demonstrates that the rule is often honored in the breach. To turn this around, senior leaders have to be aware of the true culture ' from the wise associates' point of view. Then they have to have some difficult conversations with certain partners and give associates a confidential forum for passing up feedback about matter management attitudes.

Feedback Skills

Associates will only climb the learning curve if they receive effective feedback. Many leading professional services firms now expect 70% of on-the-job learning to take place through coaching and feedback. Despite this, some partners expect associates to learn without much partner involvement. We see these comments frequently: 1) “Poor or no feedback”; 2) “Poor communicator to team and client”; 3) “Does not share the process or rationale behind the work; expects blind obedience from junior associates”; 4) No feedback on assignments”; and 5) “Does not thank team members.”

No likes to give negative feedback, so it is best avoided altogether, in the minds of some partners. Like any other unfamiliar skill, giving constructive feedback can be learned. Holding a difficult conversation can be learned. In my programs, partners who learn to give “teaching feedback” report a greater readiness and confidence about giving feedback. Feedback is the lifeblood for developing associates and it is a core skill for all partners and senior associates.

The Cost of Not Paying Attention

In midlevel and senior associate training, when associates feel free to comment, they quickly identify the costs of poor matter management ' write-offs, duplicative work, higher costs for the clients, missed deadlines, and a regular state of crisis. The ineffective partners seem to have little sense of their impact on associates ' stress, loss of respect, avoidance, and slow career progress. Despite the recession, lateral recruiters are calling again, and associates in this bind will choose a firm with a better leadership environment.

Finally, in our work on legal project management, we involve associates in the dialogue about improved work processes, and managing to alternative fees. Their suggested improvements are always the mirror opposite of the deficiencies I have noted above. They point out the many efficiencies that could be achieved by better planning, delegation and monitoring of matters. The cost of not bringing all partners up to a level of basic leadership effectiveness is a cost to a firm's legal project management reputation and capacity. That reputation and capacity is exactly what general counsel and other clients are asking for in today's new normal.

David Cruickshank ([email protected]) is a partner in the consulting firm Edge International. He advises law firms on practice management, leadership development, and legal project management. Phone: 212-734-2818.