Leadership Tenure

Insights Cover Image
Contents

    Rethinking Law Firm Leadership Tenure: The Case for Longer Terms

    As law firms face rapid and complex change, driven by generative AI, evolving client expectations, and systemic shifts in workforce culture, there is growing pressure to reconsider the tenure of firm leadership. A rising trend toward shorter leadership terms (typically 2–4 years) is emerging, often framed as a way to encourage agility and responsiveness. Yet this trend may be undermining the very transformations law firms need to survive and thrive.

    1. The Leadership Paradox

    Law firm partnerships are often paradoxical in nature, simultaneously seeking long-term resilience while applying short-term thinking to leadership selection and tenure. As firms navigate disruption from legal technology, client-side procurement sophistication, and increasing competitive threats, they require not just capable leadership but committed, long-view leadership.

    Yet in many cases, the term of office for Managing Partners or Chairs is shrinking. Whether driven by a desire to rotate leadership, to manage internal political compromise, or to inject new energy, this trend may have unintended consequences that erode long-term competitiveness.

    1. Strategic Change Demands Strategic Patience

    Major transformation, particularly involving technology and AI, is unlikely to be achieved in a single term measured in months or even a few years. It involves:

  • Planning and securing capital investment
  • Building internal capabilities
  • Navigating cultural resistance
  • Earning client trust
  • Achieving measurable ROI, often over 5–7 years
  • Reshaping the capacity curve

    • Shorter leadership terms discourage investment in foundational change. Leaders with limited time horizons are incentivised to deliver visible, immediate wins rather than lasting value. This risks perpetuating tactical initiatives over transformative ones.

    1. Accountability, Not Rotation

    Shorter terms fragment leadership accountability. When strategic initiatives fail or stall, it becomes easier to attribute failure to a previous regime. This undermines the continuity required to:

  • Deliver complex transformation
  • Build trust with key client and talent stakeholders
  • Learn from and adapt to early implementation challenges

    • Law firm partnerships often tout the benefits of shared ownership and accountability, yet rotating leadership too frequently can erode both.

    1. False Signals of Agility

    Shorter terms are frequently mischaracterised as agility mechanisms. In truth, they can be a proxy for:

  • A lack of partner alignment
  • An unwillingness to commit to a coherent strategy
  • A defensive response to internal political pressures

    • True agility comes not from swapping leaders more frequently, but from empowering leaders to adapt with authority, supported by the resources and mandate to do so.

    1. The Psychology of Short Terms

    While shorter leadership terms are often intended to keep leadership fresh and dynamic, they can just as easily produce the opposite effect. Leaders with only two or three years in office may feel disincentivised from undertaking bold, risky, or unpopular changes. Consciously or not, they may conclude: “I’ve only got two years, better to keep things stable than shake things up.” This fosters a culture of preservation rather than strategic momentum.

    In parallel, firms can enter a near-constant state of “electioneering,” where energy is spent speculating on the next leadership shift rather than building long-term initiatives. Leadership becomes more performative than purposeful, as decisions are filtered through short-term political optics. Over time, this erodes the kind of strategic confidence and institutional focus necessary for enduring transformation.

    1. Culture and Generational Tensions

    Within many partnerships, a generational divide exists:

  • Senior partners may prioritise short-term profitability and legacy stability
  • Younger partners increasingly value long-term sustainability and relevance

    • Shorter terms often serve as a compromise mechanism, appeasing the former while disempowering the latter. This risks alienating future leadership and accelerating succession challenges.

    Firms must consider structured ways to manage this tension, such as through multi-tiered leadership roles, voting reform, or performance-based leadership renewal.

    1. A Smarter Tenure Model

    Rather than prescribing static term lengths, firms should adopt a more nuanced model:

  • Initial terms of 5–6 years, tied to clear transformation milestones
  • Mid-term performance reviews to assess progress and leadership fit
  • Succession planning built around portfolio leadership (e.g. innovation, client strategy, people & culture)
  • Defined triggers for early review or renewal based on firm needs and leadership performance

    • This model balances long-term commitment with short-term accountability.

    1. Time as a Strategic Asset

    Time is not neutral. In leadership, it is a critical enabler of strategy. Law firms that treat time as a strategic asset, rather than a political liability, will be better positioned to navigate uncertainty, implement transformation, and sustain competitive relevance.

    The case for longer leadership terms is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring change is properly led, deeply implemented, and ultimately, effective.

    Get In Touch
    To Find Out More

    Contact Us