Understanding Your Firm's Culture

Managing partners usually have no trouble identifying the cultural changes needed to support their strategic initiatives: “We need more ' collaboration on key client relationships ' or business development from all partners ' or accountability.” But accomplishing these changes is seldom easy in the face of the deeply embedded habits and assumptions that constitute a culture.

In Part One of this article, published in November, we introduced a framework for understanding law-firm cultures. In this second part, after a reminder about that framework, we describe a systematic approach to successfully managing cultural change as a firm pursues its strategic goals.

Law-Firm Cultures: A Summary

Part One suggested that law-firm cultures can be arrayed along two spectrums: “friendliness” and “common focus.” Friendliness requires a willingness to invest time, energy and professional capital in helping one's colleagues. Common focus requires buying into communal goals and standards, even at the price of surrendering a good deal of individual autonomy. If we place these two spectrums onto the axes of a chart, we can group cultures into the four types described briefly in the chart on page 6, and in more detail in Part One.

When a strategic goal requires a shift in culture or might be blocked by the existing culture, leaders typically underestimate the work it takes to manage the cultural aspects of the change. Here is a three-part approach to thinking through that work.

1. Recognize Cultural Constraints

Assume, for example, that a firm concludes it must be more systematic about ensuring that client relationships pass to colleagues when a partner retires. When deciding how to achieve that goal, the firm's leaders might consider the following questions about their culture:

• Can we draw on the traits of our existing culture to support the change?
• If the change flies in the face of the culture, how can we minimize the initial resistance?
• Are we being realistic about what can be accomplished, given our existing culture?

In a networked firm, its leaders might first appeal to the culture's trait of “we-help-each-other” and then rely on a process that avoids singling out individuals for what might seem a personalized attack on their autonomy. The process might be triggered for everyone at the same age, for example, and give each partner the primary voice in deciding whom to bring into the client relationship. On the other hand, in a meritocratic culture where partners are accustomed to being evaluated and compensated on the basis of clear criteria, the first step might be to change those criteria to reward partners for introducing colleagues into a client relationship.

In contrast, in a silo culture the change will meet much more resistance because it conflicts with important aspects of the culture. Partners usually regard clients as their own, not as clients of the firm, and they are likely to see the change as an intrusion on their turf. Since the change can't be accommodated within the existing culture, the culture will have to shift if it is to succeed. But this kind of shift is a slow, step-by-step process: It involves changing the behavior of many individuals, few of whom will change simply because they're asked to.

In a silo firm, therefore, instead of rolling out the change across the firm and then hoping for the best, the firm's leaders might find a few places where a change is likely to produce concrete results relatively quickly. For example, they might identify clients from which the firm could get substantially more work if partners were to collaborate, and create pilot projects for managing the client relationship collaboratively. They could then extract data from the pilots to demonstrate that the new approach benefits not only the firm as a whole but also ' and more persuasively in a silo culture ' the individuals involved.

2. Build Consensus and Build the Case

If a firm is asking partners to adopt new behaviors or standards, especially when the change involves a cultural shift, the answer to “why?” can't be simply that it's a good idea. Partners should be treated like partners ' that is, provided an opportunity to provide input and discuss the change, and shown the evidence that lets them decide for themselves that a change is worth the effort.

Building consensus is slow and labor-intensive, however. As a result, leaders often rush the process. It's very tempting to regard the change as a simple operational matter to which no reasonable partner could object, rather than as a potentially disturbing cultural shift.

When a change runs against the grain of a culture, or when the goal is actually to change an aspect of the culture, creating the consensus can't be short-changed. However, when the change involves persuading many people to behave differently, leaders often find the consensus-building process especially frustrating because there is never a point at which they can declare victory (for example, the merger has been approved). That unhappy fact faces leaders with a tactical decision: should they try to create consensus for a blanket change across the firm, or aim for a series of smaller-scale changes that, if they succeed, can help to build consensus and create momentum for broader changes?'

Building consensus must be coupled with building the case for new behaviors and standards. How can the case be made?

• Collect data that proves there's an opportunity to be seized or risk to be avoided. For example: data drawn from nation-wide litigation dockets about the firm's share of a company's litigation portfolio, or data about the decline in business from clients when a relationship partner retires.
• Look to clients and competitors. A client's view may be more persuasive than any firm leader's. And proof that a competitor has successfully made the change may be even more persuasive.
• Tell stories about successes. As we've already suggested, savvy leaders often make sure that they can point to successes for a new approach before they begin to beat the drums for that approach across the firm.

3. Reinforce the Change

Once a firm decides to move forward with a broad change, the message about what it is and why it's important should be reinforced more times, and in more ways, than firm leaders usually recognize. Some lessons from experience:

• Find different ways to communicate the message: for example, by describing examples of the new approach at work, by showing data about the effect of a change, or by asking a client to speak about its benefits. The same message repeated in the same words quickly loses impact.
• Have the message spread not only from the top of the firm, but also by group and office leaders. Especially in a large firm, it takes work to ensure the messages are consistent.
• Enlist partners whom others trust but who don't have official positions and won't be perceived as having to follow the party line. The most effective proselytizer will be a skeptic who tried a new approach and saw it work.

In the face of long-standing habits, no form of persuasion may be enough, even if data and examples clearly demonstrate the benefits of a change. The persuasion may need to be reinforced by formal incentives or consequences. However, in the early years of a cultural change, it's not enough to bring these incentives or consequences to bear only once a year, when compensation is decided. The result will be a wave of arguments and bruised egos. Instead, the behaviors at stake should be monitored and discussed throughout the year, especially with those who are most affected by the change.

Conclusion

Managing change successfully often begins with managing culture. When a strategy requires significant changes in behaviors, attitudes, or values, success may depend on how effectively the firm's leaders focus not only on the strategic goal itself, but also on the cultural context within which the initiative will thrive or wither.'

Steve Armstrong and Tim Leishman are principals with Firm Leader Inc. Reach them at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.

Managing partners usually have no trouble identifying the cultural changes needed to support their strategic initiatives: “We need more ' collaboration on key client relationships ' or business development from all partners ' or accountability.” But accomplishing these changes is seldom easy in the face of the deeply embedded habits and assumptions that constitute a culture.

In Part One of this article, published in November, we introduced a framework for understanding law-firm cultures. In this second part, after a reminder about that framework, we describe a systematic approach to successfully managing cultural change as a firm pursues its strategic goals.

Law-Firm Cultures: A Summary

Part One suggested that law-firm cultures can be arrayed along two spectrums: “friendliness” and “common focus.” Friendliness requires a willingness to invest time, energy and professional capital in helping one's colleagues. Common focus requires buying into communal goals and standards, even at the price of surrendering a good deal of individual autonomy. If we place these two spectrums onto the axes of a chart, we can group cultures into the four types described briefly in the chart on page 6, and in more detail in Part One.

When a strategic goal requires a shift in culture or might be blocked by the existing culture, leaders typically underestimate the work it takes to manage the cultural aspects of the change. Here is a three-part approach to thinking through that work.

1. Recognize Cultural Constraints

Assume, for example, that a firm concludes it must be more systematic about ensuring that client relationships pass to colleagues when a partner retires. When deciding how to achieve that goal, the firm's leaders might consider the following questions about their culture:

• Can we draw on the traits of our existing culture to support the change?
• If the change flies in the face of the culture, how can we minimize the initial resistance?
• Are we being realistic about what can be accomplished, given our existing culture?

In a networked firm, its leaders might first appeal to the culture's trait of “we-help-each-other” and then rely on a process that avoids singling out individuals for what might seem a personalized attack on their autonomy. The process might be triggered for everyone at the same age, for example, and give each partner the primary voice in deciding whom to bring into the client relationship. On the other hand, in a meritocratic culture where partners are accustomed to being evaluated and compensated on the basis of clear criteria, the first step might be to change those criteria to reward partners for introducing colleagues into a client relationship.

In contrast, in a silo culture the change will meet much more resistance because it conflicts with important aspects of the culture. Partners usually regard clients as their own, not as clients of the firm, and they are likely to see the change as an intrusion on their turf. Since the change can't be accommodated within the existing culture, the culture will have to shift if it is to succeed. But this kind of shift is a slow, step-by-step process: It involves changing the behavior of many individuals, few of whom will change simply because they're asked to.

In a silo firm, therefore, instead of rolling out the change across the firm and then hoping for the best, the firm's leaders might find a few places where a change is likely to produce concrete results relatively quickly. For example, they might identify clients from which the firm could get substantially more work if partners were to collaborate, and create pilot projects for managing the client relationship collaboratively. They could then extract data from the pilots to demonstrate that the new approach benefits not only the firm as a whole but also ' and more persuasively in a silo culture ' the individuals involved.

2. Build Consensus and Build the Case

If a firm is asking partners to adopt new behaviors or standards, especially when the change involves a cultural shift, the answer to “why?” can't be simply that it's a good idea. Partners should be treated like partners ' that is, provided an opportunity to provide input and discuss the change, and shown the evidence that lets them decide for themselves that a change is worth the effort.

Building consensus is slow and labor-intensive, however. As a result, leaders often rush the process. It's very tempting to regard the change as a simple operational matter to which no reasonable partner could object, rather than as a potentially disturbing cultural shift.

When a change runs against the grain of a culture, or when the goal is actually to change an aspect of the culture, creating the consensus can't be short-changed. However, when the change involves persuading many people to behave differently, leaders often find the consensus-building process especially frustrating because there is never a point at which they can declare victory (for example, the merger has been approved). That unhappy fact faces leaders with a tactical decision: should they try to create consensus for a blanket change across the firm, or aim for a series of smaller-scale changes that, if they succeed, can help to build consensus and create momentum for broader changes?'

Building consensus must be coupled with building the case for new behaviors and standards. How can the case be made?

• Collect data that proves there's an opportunity to be seized or risk to be avoided. For example: data drawn from nation-wide litigation dockets about the firm's share of a company's litigation portfolio, or data about the decline in business from clients when a relationship partner retires.
• Look to clients and competitors. A client's view may be more persuasive than any firm leader's. And proof that a competitor has successfully made the change may be even more persuasive.
• Tell stories about successes. As we've already suggested, savvy leaders often make sure that they can point to successes for a new approach before they begin to beat the drums for that approach across the firm.

3. Reinforce the Change

Once a firm decides to move forward with a broad change, the message about what it is and why it's important should be reinforced more times, and in more ways, than firm leaders usually recognize. Some lessons from experience:

• Find different ways to communicate the message: for example, by describing examples of the new approach at work, by showing data about the effect of a change, or by asking a client to speak about its benefits. The same message repeated in the same words quickly loses impact.
• Have the message spread not only from the top of the firm, but also by group and office leaders. Especially in a large firm, it takes work to ensure the messages are consistent.
• Enlist partners whom others trust but who don't have official positions and won't be perceived as having to follow the party line. The most effective proselytizer will be a skeptic who tried a new approach and saw it work.

In the face of long-standing habits, no form of persuasion may be enough, even if data and examples clearly demonstrate the benefits of a change. The persuasion may need to be reinforced by formal incentives or consequences. However, in the early years of a cultural change, it's not enough to bring these incentives or consequences to bear only once a year, when compensation is decided. The result will be a wave of arguments and bruised egos. Instead, the behaviors at stake should be monitored and discussed throughout the year, especially with those who are most affected by the change.

Conclusion

Managing change successfully often begins with managing culture. When a strategy requires significant changes in behaviors, attitudes, or values, success may depend on how effectively the firm's leaders focus not only on the strategic goal itself, but also on the cultural context within which the initiative will thrive or wither.'

Steve Armstrong and Tim Leishman are principals with Firm Leader Inc. Reach them at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.