Lockstep, modified lockstep, or free-for-all? (Then there’s always
the Jones-Day model, which appears to be completely "secretive.") Asia,
it appears, is just coming to grips with a problem that has bedeviled
US and UK firms for a long time, and one that shows no sign of admitting
to a snappy solution.
According to the referenced piece in Asian Legal Business, several
trends are intersecting as the legal market on that side of the globe
becomes increasingly exposed to international competition:
- pressure to adopt at least some form of the US-invented "pay for
performance" has increased; - this is particularly true among younger lawyers;
- and is even so among formerly universal-lockstep Australian firms;
and lastly and most importantly - a "modified lockstep" needs to be administered with a combination
of outstanding sensitivity and discipline, with one eye on the essential
notion of transparency and individual merit and the other (beady, gimlet)
eye on the issue of whether an individual excelled or a practice benefited
from an astonishing environment.
The bottom line? Adam Smith himself could barely have said it
better (although he might have said it more elegantly than this English-as-a-second language interviewee):
People see less of a need to sacrifice for someone else’s benefit
with the hope of receiving some sort of payoff some day. [They’re] more
interested in being compensated now for the value they actually add.
A tragic loss of common values? An inspiring call to bring out the best?
That is for you, dear reader, to decide.
