Do you have a lazy partner?

Almost every firm in the country has a partner who is not performing - but their colleagues are failing to take them to task, says Peter Scott

I recently began a workshop for solicitors' firms by asking the question: 'How many of you have under-performing partners?'Gradually the hands went up until around half of the group were prepared to admit publicly that they had problems with partners not pulling their weight.

We then had one of the most dynamic workshops I have ever run.That confirmed for me that throughout the professions firms have serious issues of partner under-performance and non-performance, and that while some may be tackling the problem head-on, many are doing little or nothing to remedy situations that can seriously affect the well-being of everyone in their firms.No profession is immune from the problem.

The pace of change over recent years has meant that the performance required of partners has increased to such a level that it is not too wild an assertion to say that every partnership has under-performing and non-performing partners.Pause for just a moment and think about your own partnership.

Do you recognise the non-performers and under-performers? You may well be able instantly to identify them and you probably even attach to them labels, such as 'cruisers' or 'passengers'.

But what are you doing about them?The fact that you can recognise those partners who are not pulling their weight means you have already applied certain criteria by which to judge them.

How have you come to the view that a partner is falling short of the level of performance that you demand?Have you ever spoken to that partner to explain that a problem exists, and with a view to at least as a first step trying to help that partner remedy the situation?In most partnerships there is not yet an established culture of performance to set standards by which all partners can be judged, other than those standards set by the worst performers.

The kind of performance I am talking about is that of contributing as a partner in the broadest sense, to required standards.

Being technically good at the job should always be a given.I was asked recently by a partnership how they should go about instilling in their partners these performance norms and my advice to them was that they should pose to their partners the following question: 'How much do the partners really want to earn?'The responses to that question will sort out the men from the boys and serve as a touchstone of how hungry are the partners.

The greater the hunger factor the easier it will be for the firm to become a bottom-line driven practice because it will flush out the partners who really are just cruising or serving out their time.A great deal of faith is put in annual appraisals as a way of improving performance.

But how many are mere formalities when managements go through the motions? Effective appraisal has to be an ongoing, day-to-day process for it to be of real value.In order for partnerships to build performance into their partners' behaviour patterns, all partners should be asked annually to show why they should, on the basis of agreed and objective criteria, continue to be a partner in the firm.Only those who are not contributing in the manner required of them will have anything to fear from this.Alas, this will not happen other than in the most driven firms.

The rest will, unless there is a crisis, continue to accept levels of performance from many partners which on any objective basis should be unacceptable.Peter Scott is director at Horwath Consulting and the former managing partner at City firm Eversheds