ABOUT RAINMAKERS AND TWISTERS

 “Me encantaría quererte un poco menos, cómo quisiera poder vivir sin ti”, VIVIR SIN AIRE, MANÁ.

It will not take too long for a conversation with any partner in a Latin American firm to end in the topic of rainmakers and the constant challenges and mixed feelings those particular professionals create in the firm. The term “rainmaker” itself provokes startling and ambivalent reactions. In our tribal days, provoking rain was the task of witches and magicians. They had this unique gift of talking to the gods to obtain valuable resources that normal human beings could not provide. You were not trained to become a witch. You were born one. Rainmakers in law firms engulf a similar role within the rest of the “tribe”. They are endowed with a miraculous gift of being able to attract clients in a different way and quantity than other partners. Although some specific features are always described regarding these notorious individuals, at the end there seems to be a mysterious and magical skill that cannot be transferred or taught to other lawyers.

As magicians in the ancient tribes, rainmakers hold an enormous power within the firm. Sometimes they are the formal leaders of the firm and exercise their power with absolute -and many times, arbitrary- discretion. In other cases, they are not formal leaders but always make clear to the latter where the real power rests. Given their unique importance many tend to behave like prima donnas expecting the firm to run around them and their occasional whims. After all, they are the ones able to make rain for the tribe.

Rainmakers were a logical feature of the way law firms were understood for many decades: a group of highly autonomous individuals minding their own business (clients, teams) in separate silos, connected by fragile bridges with the other members of the firm (a common name in the door, central resources of support and some professional interactions and economic agreements). Strategy and common purpose were not meaningful beyond a very general and distant definition; and that was ok because it wasn’t needed. These “comunidades de techo” (sort of a “professional roommate agreement”) worked very well for many years. However, markets started to become more sophisticated and competitive in recent decades. High autonomy needed to be balanced with cooperation and some common rules. Strategy started to make some sense.

For rainmakers this situation brought some advantages. As the firm became more important, so did they. Reputation and wealth increased to higher levels. But also potential problems and conflicts resulting from a higher interaction among partners and other resources. Many rainmakers expected to continue substantially as before: rejecting being controlled by others and not complying with uncomfortable and burdensome rules. After all, they were still prima donnas right? This mismatch between the new needs of the firm and the old rainmaker model started to produce a crisis in many firms. A “twister effect” around the rainmakers offset the beneficial impact of bringing clients and wealth. Rainmakers attracted clients, money, resources, reputation, but also crisis among partners that hurt the firm in different ways. Everything turned around rainmakers, but sometimes it brought destruction.

However, it would be unfair to blame rainmakers exclusively for the “twister effect” that suffered -and still suffer- many firms. There is always magic around rainmakers that create dependence and an inclination to maintain a status-quo. Rainmakers have charismatic personalities. Either by attraction, respect or fear, others tend to look up to rainmakers and wait for solutions and direction, even if they don’t like them. Since they bring in clients and billing, some partners become accustomed to having this permanent flow of business and cash, whatever the applied compensation system is. Maybe they are jealous or resentful towards their rainmakers, but feel they need them even more. Consequently, everybody tends to accept dysfunctional behaviors and arrangements and accepts an unstable model. Until people get tired and the crisis comes in.

 Even as markets and firms have become more professional and business-like in their approach, the “rainmaker challenge” and the potential “twister effect” is still present in many firms. One of the reasons is that, despite firms’ evolution, the impact of individual quality and performance is still crucial. Team playing has become an essential part of an efficient service to clients, but individual quality is still key to achieve notorious results and excel in client service and satisfaction. That becomes especially true as the professional challenge becomes more complex. The problem is when new professional challenges and goals are managed with old solutions and formulas.

¿Should we kill the magician in the tribe to become a modern law firm? This is obviously a rhetorical question and the answer is no, but we need to change the approach towards outstanding and highly productive individuals. In a nutshell that would mean to make them play for the team and not just for themselves. This is easy to say but hard to accomplish. Here are some ideas to move along in a productive way without killing anybody:

1. Partners should understand that cultures moving around rainmakers are fed by all of them. There needs to be an open and honest discussion that clarifies dysfunctional behaviors, without blaming others and with a constructive spirit to change. This is very relevant because culture is probably the strongest ingredient in keeping the status-quo and creating “twister effects”. You only have prima donnas if you have courtiers that accept the situation.
2. There has to be a firm’s strategy that works above purely individual interest, and rainmakers need to be the prime champions of that strategy. They should keep their leadership, but with a different style.
3. The compensation system needs to be aligned with a team and collaborative strategy. This shouldn’t limit the ambition of rainmakers. Sometimes it’s difficult to ascertain which systems produce more money for rainmakers, and I’ve heard different opinions on that subject. The problem is about stability and long-term results. Even if rainmakers make more money in an individually-based compensation system (or “eat what you kill”) in present circumstances, it creates an abundant series of negative effects that threatens stability and effectiveness in the medium and long term, with negative consequences even -or maybe especially- for rainmakers.
4. The business development effort should become a firm’s project, with a strategy and the collaboration of many partners and not just the rainmakers.
5. Perhaps more than anything else, rainmakers and other partners need to agree in what kind of firm and practice they want to develop. Some rainmakers are not made to work as team players and they never will. They just don’t like it and feel bad doing it. That is not a sin but only a preference in a way of working or developing a business. It makes no sense in forcing something that will not happen. Some of the best and strongest firms have gone through this dilemma and had to leave some great partners go because they could not work in an integrated and collaborative environment. Each firm has to make its own assessment of pros and cons when these situations may appear. There are always difficult trade offs when you are dealing with tough rainmakers.

Whatever the strategy and culture a firm wants to pursue, it is important it remains consistent and face reality with its pros and cons. Like in the beautiful song by Maná, we don’t want to wish we wouldn’t have our rainmakers because we need them too much. Because we want everything, sometimes we end up with nothing. Rainmakers are probably the biggest assets in the firm, but sometimes they can get us into a twister.