Thought leader

Sherwood PSF Consulting recently undertook research into training strategies in law firms. The results were categorised into three levels, as described below.

Most of the smaller law firms are at level one, starting with technical legal training to ensure their fee earners obtain Law Society CPD points. There may be some limited skills training, such as presentation-skills programmes, carried out on an ad-hoc basis, often by ‘volume’ providers of training with off-the-shelf designs. Partners may be uncertain that any more training is needed. Some partners may introduce their own training contacts and even clients as potential providers of training. There probably isn’t a specialist training manager or any rigorous analysis of needs.

Many larger firms are at level two, and have typically established competency frameworks, performance/development reviews and clear guidelines on career progression. There is at least one senior training specialist in the firm, possibly within the HR function, though there is a trend towards having directors of training and a separate training department. The separate departments tend to employ more staff, some of which may deliver training programmes. Analysis of training needs is often done, but there may not be a rigorous assessment or much attempt to link training to business strategy. There is buy-in from most of the partners, but not all.

There are only a handful of firms attempting to move to level three. Most of them have a large number of offices and practical difficulties getting the level-two approach to work. Instead, these firms want to tailor training strategies and delivery more closely to specific practice-group or office needs. Indeed, the word ‘training’ will have been largely replaced by the words ‘learning’ and ‘development’. They are using technology (for example, intranets and e-learning) and on-the-job or executive coaching to supplement or replace training courses.

In these firms, there tends to be learning-and-development account managers who help practice groups evaluate their development needs. Induction programmes are typically run locally so that participants are more aware of the business plans of their particular practice groups. There is also an increasing trend to use 360-degree feedback and development centres to make training more ‘participant-centric’. Action-learning sets are encouraged so that groups continue to support each other in their ongoing development. Participants are strongly encouraged to have pre and post-programme discussions with their mentors to ensure there is a relevant and practical focus for development. Programmes are being assessed on more stringent criteria, such as return on investment and tangible effects on margin, growth, retention, etc.

There are challenges to making the transition between these levels. Firms will need buy-in from the partners and those for whom the training is designed. The cost of moving from level one to two will raise some eyebrows with some partners, unless the benefits of the programmes (as well as the risks of not running them) are clearly expressed. Partners may find the transition from level two to three easier. There is an investment needed in learning-and-development account managers and systems support, but the ongoing cost of running programmes may be reduced.

To get partner buy-in for either transition, some firms find it useful to run pilot programmes. If word catches on that the experiment works, this helps generate momentum for change.

Level-two training strategies can be delivered with small in-house training teams, but firms will need a squad of external training providers. The challenge for the internal team is to be clear about the learning outcomes they need from their providers and to be able to monitor the effectiveness of the training verses the objectives and business need. The in-house function also needs to ensure that messages are consistent between the different providers.

For the level-three approach, firms need a larger in-house team that can work with business units to put together appropriately tailored programmes.

Technology systems are important for firms at level three, which are finding ways of using technology to help develop knowledge and skills. For example, one firm has replaced its induction course with an online system in which new joiners are given tasks to go and find information (for example, through arranging meetings or interviews with key staff).

It is clear there are substantial challenges in making these transitions from level one to two and even bigger issues moving from level two to three. The role of the training departments is very different and firms will need to consider buy-in, resources, processes and systems for the transition to be successful. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is getting partner buy-in.

Tony Reiss is a consultant at Sherwood PSF Consulting. He can be contacted at tony.reiss@reiss-consulting.com