“Managing” or “Partner” – how much Time do MPs invest in Management Activities?

The managing partner function is often treated as if a universally agreed upon definition existed – which isn’t the case. One of the largest differences between managing partners is their time commitment: whereas some approach their mandate more like a (or another) board seat, others devote almost all or all of their time to management – for all of which there are reasons and effects.

Key words: Managing Partner, Management Time, Management

Image: Andrea Paicquadio/Pexels

There is no Model Managing Partner

Not only pop culture, but also large portions of practice and academic literature treat managing partners like a uniform function with a broadly accepted definition. Well, the reality is another. Managing partners' roles and responsibilities vary significantly, including the division of management tasks within the partnership, time allocation, and more. Although these factors are interconnected, it is crucial to examine them individually. This article explores the time investment of managing partners in their management role.

Percentage of what?

To determine the time commitment of managing partners to management activities, among other aspects, I conducted interviews with managing partners from 35 prominent law firms in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. When asked about the proportion of time they dedicated to management tasks, the managing partners inquired, "Percentage of what?" Their intention was to highlight the substantial increase in workload since assuming the managing partner position. One managing partner explained, "It's about two-thirds management work and two-thirds client work." Hence, for many managing partners, the new role comes “on top” of their client work and their billable hours are only reduced by a fraction of the time they invest into steering the firm.

Size matters

In a 2004 survey by Altman Weil, they found that lawyers with significant management responsibilities (not only MPs, but also practice group heads etc.) are still required to bill a significant number of hours. However, the required billable hours decreased significantly with law firm size. For instance, lawyers with management responsibilities in firms with fewer than 50 lawyers billed around 1500 hours annually, whereas the number dropped to less than 1200 hours for firms with 50-99 lawyers. In contrast, firms with over 100 lawyers witnessed a significant decline to approximately 550 billed hours. In a more recent survey by the same firm, managing partners from firms with over and under 250 lawyers were asked about the time they spent on management activities. Below the 250-lawyer threshold, only about 17% of managing partners dedicated their entire time to management, whereas in the 250+ lawyer category, nearly 60% were full-time managers.

In the above-mentioned study, where I asked the same question to managing partners of 35 of the largest law firms in Switzerland, Germany and Austria, the results were as expected: fairly distributed, with seven MPs reporting to spend less than a fifth of their time on management activities, ten between 21-40%, twelve between 41-60%, three between 61-80% and another three spending almost all or all of their time on management. However, the size matters argument held: most managing partners of the largest law firms in my sample belong in one of the two categories with the most time spent on management activities.

A Question of Governance, Strategy and Culture

However, size alone is not the sole determining factor; governance structure, strategic considerations, and firm culture also play vital roles. Governance refers to the distribution of management responsibilities among lawyer leaders. A more centralized approach leads to a heavier workload and burden for those in managerial roles, while spreading management and oversight activities across more members of the firm reduces the initial workload for managing partners but necessitates more coordination.

While preferences exist and indicate a trend towards more centralized management as firms grow, there is no inherently superior or inferior option. This is where strategy and culture come into play. What goals does the firm aim to achieve? In situations where there is a clear direction, ambitious expansion targets, profit margin improvement, or during crises, a centralized management approach that can make prompt, decisive, and robust decisions might be preferable (provided the firm's leaders truly lead the firm instead of forming merely a puppet management controlled by influential partners working behind the scenes).

But we have all heard the famous sentence “culture eats strategy for breakfast” and probably even seen organizational culture devouring a newly implemented strategy. Consequently, if a law firm fosters a culture of partner autonomy, a managing partner attempting to enforce a centralized strategy may face significant challenges. One interviewee shared their experience with a previous managing partner, stating:

"We once made the mistake of choosing a managing partner who was very enthusiastic about taking on the full management role. However, he quickly abandoned his responsibilities. When we realized this, we intervened and said, 'Stop, you should focus on serving clients again,' which resulted in the termination of his tenure."

In this case, the firm was unaccustomed to being managed, and their culture did not align with the more centralized approach adopted by the new managing partner. As a result, the other partners swiftly put an end to the managing partner's leadership.

Why does it matter?

It is crucial for the firm to ensure that the chosen management style, including the time managing partners invest in management activities, aligns with either the existing culture or the desired strategy (if the strategy aligns with the organizational culture or involves cultural change). For managing partners, this consideration holds significance for two reasons: legacy and professional future. If a managing partner seeks to make a lasting impact and drive substantial changes, they will need an exceptional team and must invest additional effort and time. However, it is equally important to keep their own future in mind. The tenure as managing partner will eventually come to an end, and if that day does not coincide with retirement, it is beneficial to have a preserved book of business and be prepared to move forward without having to start from scratch.