by Bruce | October 14, 2004 | Articles, Compensation, Cultural Considerations, Finance, Globalization
Can a UK firm crack the New York market without bending its lockstep partner compensation model? No, at least not if you’re Clifford Chance. CC has a global lockstep for its equity partners except some "super-pointers" in New York. This anomaly...
by Bruce | October 8, 2004 | Articles, Compensation, Cultural Considerations, Finance, Leadership
"The few, the proud, the Marines?" I would make that, "The few, the proud, the lockstep-compensation firms." I’ve opined before that partnership compensation at many firms is in disequilibrium: While lockstep has its merits...
by Bruce | September 12, 2004 | Articles, Compensation, Cultural Considerations, Leadership, Partnership Structures
Getting partner compensation "right" is an issue I have, and will continue to, recur to. Why? Essentially because I believe that the two extreme models (the strict lockstep and the strict "eat what you kill") each works in only the...
by Bruce | August 14, 2004 | Articles, Compensation, Finance, Globalization, Leadership, Partnership Structures
Lockstep, modified-lockstep, lockstep with pay for performance, or pure "eat what you kill?" This is an issue which has not, to say the least, achieved equilibrium. "Equilibrium" in economics means something akin to what "climax...
by Bruce | July 16, 2004 | Articles, Compensation
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...
by Bruce | July 2, 2004 | Articles, Compensation, Cultural Considerations, Finance
"Meritocracies can be very divisive," pronounces this British analyst, in arguing that the most rational and effective partner compensation model, indeed the "undisputed model of choice,"is the "modified lockstep." But isn’t...
