Opinion: Consequences of change

By Colin White, managing director, Ortus Research

The trade press is always full of news and speculation regarding changes to all sorts of law firms, particularly in the wake of mergers, downsizing and the development of new practice areas and markets. Often this is as a result of a positive management decision to pursue a new direction and sometimes it is a defensive decision forced by factors like unsatisfactory profit levels, the loss of key clients or a lack of support from the broader partnership. One factor remains constant throughout, however. These decisions begin a process of change that may begin with the best of intentions but often the results go far beyond what is intended. This month, to explore some of the consequences of imposed change, I spoke with several partners from current and past search projects who chose to move for this reason.

One scenario that causes problems to individual partners is when they are recruited for a very specific purpose and then the strategy of the firm changes, which effectively isolates those individuals before they have had a chance to establish themselves. One partner who is the head of a practice group for a US firm told me: “I was recruited to launch a contentious practice from London, which integrated with the US offices, but in reality I felt that I had been bought for my clients and my practice turned out to be nothing more than a hobby to this firm.” This had nothing to do with cultural differences across the Atlantic, bearing in mind the partner concerned is American. This change of plan damaged the client base of this partner, as he was conflicted out of several multi-million-dollar projects. Cases like this make one wonder why such investments are made if they are to be neglected in such a way following what must surely be a predictable change given the time span involved. This kind of decision making indicates a lack of clarity on behalf of management thinking or an inability/unwillingness to deal with the uncomfortable situation of discussing implementation with those who are unlikely to appreciate the changes.

Following a relatively recent major merger between two national firms, one practice group leader told me: “After many years building up a team, currently turning over more than £4m, we have been broken up to fit into a new regime of industry sectors, which is immensely frustrating.” In another example, one large firm chose to change the targeting strategy of its client base, focusing on blue-chip clients and moving away from the more traditional strengths of servicing SMEs. There is a clear logic in taking this step but it caused the losses of two very experienced and profitable partners and their clients because they no longer felt critical to the future of the firm. One partner told me: “I have developed one of the most profitable client bases in the firm and I have been made to feel peripheral to any success.” This partner went on to lead another corporate practice while his previous firm fell down the rankings in several areas.

In these two examples, the partners concerned had not bought into the changes because they had never been convinced of the strategy behind them. Each of these partners told me they would have been more open to adopting these ideas if time had been taken to properly explain the thinking and purposes of these changes. There was a lack of buy-in because it felt imposed and for no reason they could identify with. Communication and consultation are crucial to gaining buy-in from a large number of individuals who must believe they are making these changes for the greater good, even if it does not suit them individually.

The examples above are typical of what happens when change is imposed within a firm, but what can be done to minimise the fall out? Management must find a way to engage all of their colleagues, including those who do not stand to gain from broad changes. We all know that communication and consultation are two of the most important characteristics of achieving buy-in for change yet when several partners are unlikely to accord, some feel there is a tendency to avoid confronting the issues altogether.

Disagreement is as certain as change itself so there is an ever-present risk of alienating a number of our colleagues. If we accept disagreement as inevitable, we should only do so with the knowledge that we have done all that we can to make sure that any collateral losses are for the right reasons.

Colin White is managing director of Ortus Professional Search. He can be contacted at colin.white@ortussearch.com