Stop pampering, start pulling: How to lead for the long game

It generally does not take long to work out who has the power and authority in a law firm. Whatever the firm’s size, there is usually a small group of partners who hold the greatest influence and control. Optimally, this is the group to whom the rest of the partners look for guidance and steerage, but occasionally (and sub-optimally) they can also be the group considered as a self-perpetuating oligarchy, ruling by tight control and even by fear.  

Consensus management is difficult nowadays. Firms can easily get bogged down by rounds of endless and circular discussion, or by the firm’s desire for perfection. The result is management projects delayed by nitpicking, repetitive discussions and the micro-management of detail. Wrong or muddled decision making then takes place, based on a failure to differentiate the wood from the trees. 

The problem is that, unless carefully done, firms can then tend to flip flop from a gentle consensus model into an aggressively controlling style of macho-management in which gung-ho gun-slinging partners dominate by brute force and intimidation. 

Whatever the management structure, decision makers in partnerships face an unenviable dilemma. They need to speed up and professionalize decision making, while at the same time preserving the essential elements of partnership, including the need for huge amounts of communication and consultation together with at least some element of consensus. The inclination of many law firms toward a more explicitly corporate structure carries the attendant risk that a “command and control” style of “corpocracy” can follow—rules-oriented, hierarchical, status conscious, with formal structures designed to restrict the flow of information.  

Part of any partner’s development and training should be concentrated on finding the right style of leadership and management to suit both the character of the partner and the needs and profile of the organization. There are many ways of describing the various possible leadership styles. One that I have found helpful for over twenty years is the four different styles or attitudes of leading change known as push, pull, pummel and pamper that I first learned from Dr Harvey Robbins.¹ I have seen most firms use all four approaches all the time, but often in a haphazard and unplanned manner. An awareness and understanding of the different styles (and when to use them) can help all those involved in the leadership and management of law firms to develop their own methodologies and approaches.  

Push 

Push is most commonly known for its use of the burning platform. It is the deliberate use of a certain level of force or fear in order to galvanize positive action or results. With push, the leader seeks to use the stick as much as the carrot. It involves, therefore, a certain amount of directive management but falls short of bullying. Its main advantage for a law firm is that it is a heavily performance-management-oriented system focussing on efficiency, results and measurement. It makes partners and staff aware that adverse consequences will ensue in cases of underperformance or failure to hit targets. It is therefore extremely useful in the short to medium term, particularly in a firm’s recovery or improvement phase. It should be recognized that push does not always make for a happy ship because it has a heavy degree of direction and control, with the accent on improvement, reform and the work ethic, as evidenced, for instance, by high billable hours. It can therefore cause anxiety and loss of morale if carried to an extreme or used in isolation for prolonged periods. On its own, it is a limited methodology or style and is at its most effective when combined with pull. 

Pull 

Pull is a generically enlightened methodology that appeals to a partner’s interest as much as their intellect. In the long term, most partners should be aiming to use as much pull as they can. If push is the stick, pull is the carrot. This is because pull operates at a more inspirational level to engage the imagination and to motivate. It is push plus empowerment. Under this model, partners motivate or, indeed, scare themselves.    

Pull permanently alters the way people think of themselves, as it encourages career planning and ambition. It is the hardest way to achieve results but has the best long-term prospects. Perhaps most importantly, it carries with it all that is best in terms of progressive personnel practices, with a focus on people development and the creation and maintenance of positive performance-oriented and client-focused cultures. Pull encourages partners to look after their people on the basis that profit will follow. Pull also emphasizes relationships, culture, democracy and teamwork. 

Quality of work and career development are also important elements under pull. With this approach, partners will attempt to find better and more stimulating work for themselves and their people and to work in a positive atmosphere where teamwork and fun are stressed and social interaction is encouraged. 

Pummel 

Pummel is the application of martial law, useful in times of emergency. It involves control, forced change, the reign of terror. Pummel is the environment of the dictator, or where a board or power caucus within the partnership exercises heavy control with a tight hand. There is practically no positive encouragement to perform, but maximum negative stimulation and even a degree of bullying to enforce compliance. As an example, partners in one US firm were some years ago described as “being at the mercy of a small unelected and self-perpetuating executive committee.” 

While it can be necessary occasionally to employ dictatorial measures, pummel usually only works well in the short term. In a firm where there is endemic underperformance, lacklustre partner accountability and consistent failures to adhere to agreed or sensible internal disciplines, a “short sharp shock” spell of pummel can be a useful way to kick-start a period of change and revival. A firm that wishes to impose a period of martial law will need to impose heavy internal controls and to rely on enforcement and performance management, with the application of a small carrot and a big stick. Pummel tends to work only in short spells, and it is important to move as quickly as possible to mix in other styles.  

The management team will need to factor in the probability that paranoia and insecurity will grow quite swiftly under such a regime, and to recognise that in general a prolonged period of pummel inevitably leads to long-term unhappiness and demotivation.  

Pamper 

Pamper can be useful as a short-term reward but is hopeless as a long-term approach. It is a regime of chaos and anarchy. Sadly, I see pamper too often as the default management style in far too many firms. Pamper involves the culture of entitlement and proprietorship. It is an environment in which partners “do their own thing” and have little or no accountability to anyone. In the extreme example of a pamper environment, there are few standards or internal disciplines, little sharing of information, clients or people, and few quality checks. A pamper partnership deed is one where one or a few partners can hold the partnership to ransom—for example, where no partner can be expelled for consistent underperformance or where an overwhelming majority is needed to effect any change. It enhances the old-style illusion of cradle-to-grave security. It can be seen as pull minus accountability. The problem is, in firms that rely on maximum empowerment there often is also no ultimate sanction and little fear.  

In the long term, therefore, pamper will foster slack performance with scant measurement or evaluation. 

Organizations tend to use all four approaches (pummel, pamper, push, pull) inconsistently and without coordination. Pummel (strict enforcement) and pamper (indulgence) are effective only in the very short term, with pummel suited to crises and pamper useful as a brief reward but harmful if prolonged. Equally, the combination of pamper with pummel or push can engender a toxic environment in which the favoured few are seen to be pampered and the rest of the firm are pummelled or pushed. Push (driving change) works in the short to medium term, while pull (inspiring alignment with values) is the most sustainable method for long-term organizational change. 

The point about push, pull, pummel and pamper is that there is a time and place for all of them, but pummel and pamper should be extremes for occasional and short-term use only. Firms often spend much time debating and deciding their governance structures and management systems, but the style of management adopted from day to day tends often to be developed by default and without much thought, largely as a result of the natural idiosyncrasies of the individuals involved in the firm’s leadership. Ideally, a firm should devote energy and discussion to deciding what works best in the context of the firm, its leaders and the conditions in which the firm practices. Additionally, other issues should be considered, including the firm’s maturity, its strategy, its culture and traditions, and any imperative for short-term change or dramatic improvement. Hence, managers must learn to adapt their management style to the needs of the firm—and this is easier said than done. The importance, however, of establishing a coherent approach is not just to achieve some key objectives for the firm, but to help the firm become a happier and more stimulating place in which its people are persuaded to continue to invest their careers.   

¹ Robbins & Finley (1996) “Why Change Doesn’t Work” Peterson’s/Pacesetter Books  ISBN 1-56079-944-7 

Edge Principal Nick Jarrett-Kerr LL.B is a specialist adviser to law firms and professional services firms worldwide on issues of strategy, governance and leadership development as well as all-important business issues facing firms as they compete in difficult market conditions. In the last twelve years, he has established himself as one of the leading UK and international advisers to law firms. He has been involved full-time in professional service firm management for over twenty years. 

This article appeared at Edge International in September 2025.