When a law firm is ordering a training program for associates, an important question to agree is the level of "associates empowerment" that the law firm is expecting from associates.
A training program can be designed so as to lead associates to comply with and operate within the existing organisation and processes, without questioning them. But it can also give associates a chance to think critically and creatively about the firm's organisation and processes. When, during a workshop, a question as basic as "How could we improve the effectiveness of our practice group meetings?" is asked to associates, it actually invites them to think critically and creatively about the system. It implies that the system can be perfected. It implies that partners' job in managing the firm is not perfect. It implies that associates are authorised to take a critical distance with the system instead of adhering to it without any questions. It implies that partners should take suggestions into account and act upon them. Are partners fully aware of all these implications? Is this what they want to get, or do they want a training that will actually reduce the critical (and creative) distance that associates might have?
When facing all these implications, some partners will think twice before buying an "empowering training experience" for associates. And maybe rightly so. In other firms, partners are more willing to enable associates to think creatively and critically about the system. And maybe rightly so. What is important, in my opinion, is for the firm to make a conscious decision about the desired level of empowerment that the training is expected to produce.
Antoine Henry de Frahan
Comments