Create The Time To Do The Leadership Job
Sometimes for senior leaders the job is full time. For managing partners in a large firm that is a sensible idea. However, I believe strongly that leaders of teams should normally continue to undertake work directly for clients. Leadership by example in professional work cannot be overestimated. To be able to demonstrate good practice provides credibility. Actions speak louder than words. It is much easier for people to coach others if they are known to be successfully doing professional work themselves. The important thing is to achieve a sensible balance between leadership activities, on the one hand, and all of the other activities that have to be undertaken on the other.
The national law firm DLA has evolved a useful way of dealing with this issue. Robert Halton, the Human Resources Director, persuaded the firm to reject the distinction of ‘fee-earning’ and ‘non-fee-earning’ time. (This difference is still commonly observed, especially in accountancy and law firms.) He introduced the notion of firm’s time instead. In the box ‘Firm’s time at DLA’, you can see how it works.
Firm’s Time At Dla
The partners were invited to indicate how many hours they spent, on average, working for the firm each year. They arrived at a total of 2,300 hours. They took into account the average number of hours spent working each week and deducted time for holidays. Each partner now agrees an allocation of hours for each year as part of the performance management process. The allocations vary depending on the precise nature of the job but typically are as follows:
Leadership and team management
350
Strategic planning and budgeting
50
Business development and marketing
350
Financial management
100
Personal development
100
Wider partnership role
50
Professional work
1,300
The total for each person adds up to 2,300
A similar exercise is undertaken for associates and solicitors. Not everyone, of course, has leadership responsibilities so that category does not always apply. However, all lawyers now think in terms of total time and how it should be subdivided between different activities for them, rather than ‘fee-earning’ and ‘non-fee-earning’ time.
Robert Halton has this to say about the benefits:
Language is important. It reflects what people think. We used to talk in terms of professional and non-professional staff and fee earners and non-fee earners. That is not good news as far as teamwork is concerned.
Likewise we used to talk about chargeable hours and nonchargeable hours. It was as if the only thing that lawyers did that was important was the fee earning. Of course the fee earning is critically important but so is how people use the rest of their time. We now talk about clients’ time. That is doing the technical work for the clients and meeting with them. We also talk about firm’s time or investment time. It includes marketing activities, personal development and contributing to the partnership generally. The notion is underscored by all of the lawyers having a target number of hours for these activities, in addition to their targets for professional work. As far as team leaders are concerned it includes target time, of course, for leadership work.
Total contribution is now part of the remuneration system. Rewarding people for being successful in the investment activities reinforces their behaviour. Clearly, people are more likely to go on doing these things well if there is a pay-off. It has taken time but this new way of thinking is now bedding down in the culture. We are not completely there yet but we are well on our way. The benefits are clear. Increasingly our people are business people as well as being professional people.
If you work in an organization where the notion of agreeing time to perform the leadership function is well established, then that is fine. If not, then why not seek an agreement on this issue as a matter of priority with your senior colleagues?