I don’t normally like to just share other people’s content without expanding upon what they’ve said. But this post over at AdamSmithEsq. is really fantastic and I don’t think there’s much I could add to make the point any better.
I suggest that afterwards, you take a few minutes to revist my main website and reconsider whether and to what degree you have ever been a victim of the Doctrine of Sacrifice in your own career or life.
The following is from Bruce over at Adam Smith Esq, a blog I highly recommend:
I want to discuss a theory floated by two economists posing an alternative explanation for large firms’ “up or out” partnership structure, which was covered
As you know, the conventional explanation for what is essentially a binary personnel policy—associate or partner—is usually referred to as the “tournament” model, positing that associates compete to win the “tournament” of election to partnership, and that both the carrot of tremendous rewards should they succeed, and the stick of unconditionally being forced to leave if they do not, provide ample incentive for them to work, shall we say, with extreme diligence for 7 to 10 years.
In lieu of that explanation, the professors theorize
Add to this the practice of keeping associates effectively at arm’s length from clients and, our professors theorize, the firm has as solid a handle on clients as feasible. As one reader put it to me in an email: “Once associates get too experienced, keeping them around as anything less than partner is too dangerous. It seemed pretty persuasive to me, at first glance.”
The problem is that 80% of the AmLaw 200 do precisely that, as document in Prof. Bill Henderson’s paper
Essentially, through flatly denying reality. With straight faces, they say:
You’d think the second prize, instead of getting fired, would be a somewhat smaller salary than being partner. And firms don’t do that, which may seem surprising. To us, it’s not surprising at all. The worst thing you could, in our conception, would be to keep a bunch of people around who are competent but underpaid because they’d be the ones who walk off with all the clients.
And when called on this contradiction by the WSJ interviewer, who asks “How do these people [non-equity partners] fit in?,” they demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the role non-equity partners play, describing them as “people that are very good at some aspect of the job,” and nothing more.
Now, is this a fatal defect in their theory?
My take is that it doesn’t entirely knock it off the table, but it certainly is not going to dethrone the “incentives/tournament” theory any time soon in my mind. Yes, firms obviously know that their only assets are client relationships, and as the shockingly rapid implosion of some firms over the past decade has shown, those assets are highly portable and the firm’s hold on those assets can be fragile. But I think firms respond to that more by how they manage their own partnership structure than by the far blunter instrument of the up-or-out structure. Which, we know, only holds true for 20% of the AmLaw 200 today.
There’s no reason to delay the life you want to live.
Find out how we can help you double your revenue in less than 18 months. Click here to schedule a complimentary discovery call with our team.