Can we all agree that "leadership" is an indispensable ingredient that
can separate the truly exceptional firms from the wannabes? Yes,
thank you. Now, can we define "leadership?" I for
one cannot, but I usually turn to my favorite troika of wise men on this
topic (among many others) for insights and "ah-ha!" observations: Warren
Bennis, Peter Drucker, and David Maister.
One belief about leadership which they share is that leaders can be,
if not exactly "made," then cultivated, trained, developed, and nurtured: If
there is essentially no raw material to be worked with, developing a
leader is a lost cause. But given two more or less equally intelligent,
talented, personable, and ambitious 20-something’s, the one who works
in a firm that takes professional development seriously will be a far
more effective (and popular) leader 30 years later than the one who goes
into a sink-or-swim environment.
The stages in ascending the ladder from leading one person—oneself—through
cultivating professional self-discipline and motivation, to leading an
entire firm with a combination of cultural stewardship and inspirational
vision, are nicely described here. "Growing
Leaders 101," if you will. By itself the article is scarcely
groundbreaking, but that is precisely why I bring it to your attention. Simply
put, it is alien thinking to most law firms to propose they embark on
leadership development.
Contrast this deep assumption of the profession—that leaders will
naturally emerge from the rocky soil of the associate ranks, without
cultivation or fertilization—with the approach McKinsey, Goldman-Sachs,
or Procter & Gamble take to developing young talent. Now compare
the perceived talent and professionalism of the senior managerial ranks
of those firms with that of comparably pre-eminent law firms. The
difference is not, in short, an accident.
