P2P

63 I L T A N E T . O R G while I still think that argument has some merit, even those who have spent entire careers managing companies struggle with sustaining growth. As Christensen observes: "about 90% of all publicly traded companies have proved themselves unable to sustain for more than a few years a growth trajectory that creates above- average shareholder returns. Unless we believe that the pool of management talent in established firms is like some perverse Lake Wobegon, where 90% of managers are below average, there has to be a more fundamental explanation for why the vast majority of good managers has not been able to crack the problem of sustaining growth."(emphasis added) Though all companies struggle with navigating a changing marketplace, one particular obstacle for law firms is embedded in the leadership style that typically works for expertise-based companies. Maister explains that in expertise-based companies (like most big law firms), "the autonomy of the individual partner would be among the most supreme virtues in the firm, with little use made of formal internal structuring." This setup has had much historical success. But as the legal industry undergoes structural shifts, this hands off approach is now a liability. Christensen explains that: "disruptive innovation is the category of circumstance in which powerful senior managers must personally be involved… A senior-most executive is the only one who can endorse the use of corporate processes when they are appropriate, and break the grip of those processes and decision rules when they are not." No amount of business acumen will be sufficient in creating change unless senior leadership is willing to be hands-on throughout. Conclusion A proactive approach to risk, streamlined processes, designated resources, and management skills are all necessary for a firm to be able to adapt for the future, but they alone are not sufficient. As much as certain people are pushing for change, employees at every level make prioritization decisions. And those decisions are derived from how the firm sets up its values. One set of values is not inherently better than another, and it is possible to navigate the tension between expertise vs efficiency; but the conflict between them will always be present. Selling products that make an organization more efficient is one thing. Organizations trying to transition from expertise-based values to efficiency-based values will, as Maister puts it, "be transforming the fundamental nature of their firm." And those asking their lawyers and staff to become more efficient while focusing their incentives and growth strate on expertise-based work will have a hard time navigating that tension. So legal technolo companies must be conscious of the changes their solutions ask of a firm. Similarly, the more conscious law firm leaders are of how much they are asking their lawyers and staff to change, the less frustrated these might be when things don't go according to plan. ILTA James Côté is a Legal Technolo and Innovation Specialist at Bennett Jones LLP. He combines technolo and innovation with business strate to navigate the changing legal landscape. Before law, he worked as a journalist, entrepreneur, engineer, and farmer.

• Cover