| THE
CONTEXT
Meeker,
Needham and Ames is specialized in Corporate
Law and faces stagnant billings due to the
competition and the emergence of in-house
legal counsel. The legal profession in its
whole is also characterized by the fact that
more and more graduates are female. This trend
is already reflected in the past 5 years hiring
of this firm: 40 percent are women but few
are staying.
WHY
I WOULD MAKE JULIE ROSS A PARTNER
Ms.
Ross has to become a partner for 2 reasons.
She simply gets more billings than Tim Brower
and profits are after all the only thing important
to the partners of this lawfirm. Secondly,
she has to be hired to express a change in
the Human Resource policy (provided there
is one): hiring her would be an acknowledgment
of the new sociological profile of the attorneys
(more women and different perceptions of happiness
in life).
Economically,
the firm can not afford to loose the revenues
generated by Ms. Ross, the economic climate
is difficult due to in-house counsel and competition
and the way she is perceived by the customers
is important. She has demonstrated she can
bring in new accounts while Mr. Brower has
not and doesn´t seem interested in the
salesman function of the lawyer.
Back
to Top
In
terms of Human Resource policy, it is important
to offer career opportunities (in a fast food
as well as in an intellectual service organization)
to the people otherwise they leave. The cost
of turnover is this firm must be tremendous:
one thing is to make profit by selling more
but it is pointless without cost control.
The
firm has to hire Ms. Ross to show it has seen
that workforce demographics are changing.
By doing that the firm must ensure the renewing
of its workforce: forty percent of the recruits
are female and this proportion could still
increase. It is therefore important to attract
the best element and keep them in the company
with incentives distinct from the prospect
of working long hours if you want to make
it to the partner´s level.
There
is also in the 90´s a sociological trend
that seems very different from the 80´s
and the yuppie values. Professionals are thinking
that it is possible to act responsibly towards
their families and meet professional goals.
I don´t think that time spent in the
office increases productivity unless it is
well spent i.e. in an ambiance of personal
satisfaction and development therefore, seventy
hours are unreasonable in the creative environment
that should exist in a lawfirm.
Obviously
threats exist in the nomination of Ms. Ross,
Pamela Fisher, Jim Welch and probably other
partners won´t probably accept the promotion
and shall resist any changes. They were both
unsuccessful in their family life and probably
are implicitly jealous that Julie Ross might
succeed in both her private and professional
life.
I
would tend to compare this attitude to the
behavior of the dropout students who come
back to school to vandalize it so that nobody
will benefit from the facilities. Nevertheless
these threats do not overweight the opportunities
that might result from a change in the firm:
giving part time facilities to female partners
could result in a significant business advantage
in the medium and long term as the competition
for able people escalates. Besides that, many
of those women might decide at mid-life to
reenter the competition for the top.
A
weakness in my proposal would be that at short-term
some of the partners might leave with their
clients but on the other hand I would say
that nobody is irreplaceable and that a firm
like this one has to have a medium-term vision.
HOW
SHOULD THE FIRM HAVE HANDLED THE PROBLEM BETTER
Back
to Top
I
am not sure it would have been easy to handle
the problem better since the emergence of
entire female professional categories seems
recent to me (lawyers in the USA and in Belgium
as far as I know, doctors in the former USSR).
I
would say a way to reduce the problem and
eliminate it, if possible, for the future
would consist in the adoption of formal procedures
and not by setting rules individually for
each partner.
The
general set of rules should recognize the
emotional aspects of work and career and that
the business environment is more difficult
and stressful for the women than for the men.
A new assessment system based only on billing
only has to be created.
The
ability to generate profit could be evaluated
on an hours-billed monthly basis equal for
all the employees (or equal amongst the women
employees with a quota of women partners to
be met).
Therefore
the lawyer who would like to have it all could
be a performer by ordering her priorities
and using her time effectively at the office
and by carrying some work at home. After all,
isn't true that a lot of office time is lost
in kinds of ritualistic nonproductive "work"
?
Another
argument for a comparison of the billings
produced on an equal hour basis would be that
organizations full of sharks don´t always
work better since those "career obsessed"
people are often scorned by the other colleagues.
I
would also and finally implement an intermediate
level between associate and partner. The current
structure with 2 levels is too simple for
a 120 people firm since it channels the ambition
in one direction (I want to become a partner)
and create conflicts and frustrations.
Inserting
a rung in the ladder like senior associate
or something like that would avoid too extreme
reaction (non-collaboration or dissimulation
of information) from the "full time" partners
and would become a security cushion.
Back
to Top
|
