Is the problem you are trying to solve one that has a technical solution, or does it require someone to change something they have so far been unwilling to change?

When an initiative fails within a law firm, the subsequent analysis usually focuses on execution. It was not implemented properly, there was insufficient follow-up, the partners were not sufficiently engaged, or the team never fully understood it.

Sometimes that interpretation is correct. However, in many cases the problem arises earlier and concerns something far more critical: the diagnosis itself.

For decades, Ronald Heifetz has developed at Harvard a distinction that is particularly useful for highly complex organisations: the distinction between technical problems and adaptive problems.

The former have known solutions and require methodology, specialist expertise and effective execution. The latter are of a different nature, as they cannot be resolved solely through tools, processes or training. They require people to change something fundamental in the way they operate: how they understand their role, how much authority they are willing to share, which habits they need to abandon, or which aspects of the firm’s culture are no longer serving its interests.

Across many law firms in Spain and Latin America, the same pattern repeatedly emerges.

Technical solutions are applied to adaptive problems. A firm that has spent years trying to ensure that business development no longer depends on a small group of partners does not merely have a commercial methodology issue. It faces a deeper challenge: how to transform individual relationships into collective institutional assets without those who originated them feeling that they are losing influence, control or recognition. A CRM system may help, and so may training, but no tool can replace that conversation.

The same applies to many strategic plans that are approved but subsequently only partially implemented. In many instances, the issue is one of governance: namely, who genuinely has the authority to make decisions that affect partners who are accustomed to operating with a high degree of autonomy. Until that question is answered clearly, a strategic plan may be well drafted yet still have only limited capacity to transform the firm.

The partnership structure makes this type of leadership particularly challenging because it is often designed to protect individual autonomy rather than to mobilise collective change. As a result, many decisions are postponed, diluted, or reshaped into initiatives that are easier to present but far less capable of addressing the underlying issue.

What distinguishes firms that make meaningful progress is their ability to identify the problem accurately, distinguish between its technical and adaptive dimensions, and act accordingly.

Before approving the next initiative within your firm, it is worth asking a simple question: is the problem you are trying to solve one that has a technical solution, or does it require someone to change something they have so far been unwilling to change?

Many firms already know the answer. The challenge is that knowing the answer is not the same as being willing to act upon it.

If you would like to work on this diagnosis within your firm, please get in touch.

Marc Gericó
Global Managing Partner of Gericó Associates