Post by Nuno B.M. Lumbrales, lawyer, partner at Lumbrales & Associados and LawRD user:

The development of non legal skills, i.e. management, strategy and leadership, has been subject of an ever growing interest in law firms, regarding their senior partners.

Such a trend implies investments on professional training in those areas and others alike.

The matter of leadership, particularly, raises important and complex issues, unlike those concerning management, for it has a life of its own, manifesting itself and coming into being, many times in a spontaneous manner, whenever the company structure or some of its elements make way for any voids of power and initiative.

All organizations have some sort of “official structural grid” which defines functions, competences and hierarchy within them.

However, when the officially designated leaders do not act effectively, more often than not, when initiative and procedure leadership are concerned, these are taken by elements less empowered, hierarchy wise, but naturally more keen to take such decisions.

This gap between “official and real” structures striving within companies, in medium or long term,  will  result in counter-productivity.

From all the issues that will breed from that situation, the difficulty in legitimizing merit within the organization, stands out. Adding to it, is the increase awkwardness in coping with the different agendas, objectives and priorities (even preferences) of these two co-existing leaderships.

All the mentioned factors and circumstances are hurdles and setbacks in any company’s performance and productivity.

That is why all companies, namely law firms, ought to ensure that their leaders have all the necessary conditions to in fact exercise their competences, under the penalty of, not doing so, squandering their resources (i.e. time) trying to solve and sort inside conflicts, otherwise avoidable.

Post by Gustavo Rocha, lawyer and consultant in management, IT and quality for law firms. He’s the author of Gestão.Adv.br (content in Portuguese only):

“Before starting any changes, leaders must reaffirm goals and organization purposes” (Kaplan).

This statement aims at three key factors for companies:

1. Goals
2. Purposes
3. Changes

Let us run these items through in detail.

Goals: What are your firm’s goals? To be on the top within five years? To have the best team in two? To provide an excellent quality service? Words…words… Having goals does not mean having nice words written nor for people to pursue unattainable goals without any planning at all. Goals have to be within reach in short, medium and large terms. Real and palpable ones. Forget impossible numbers to be met within unreasonable time. Have a reality check.

Set your goals to stand a little further than what it is expectable, so that extra bit may act as an incentive.

How can any leader redefine any goals for their company if these are not clear enough within the company itself?

Purposes: What are your firm purposes? Growth? Sustainability? Making money? Purposes/goals can not be taken for results!

Purposes are the final reason for which companies strive.Its ideal. More than mere cold words, they are feelings and objective realizations.

With no purpose any enterprise is doomed to fail.

Changes: When goals are reachable and a company’s purposes are solid, all that it takes is for a leader to point a way: “It is very easy to command free man, just show them the path towards duty” (Marechal Osório).

If we want that changes do succeed we’ll have to fine tune our goals, to appreciate our purposes and base changing on deep roots and truth, reason and sentiment in complete sync.