misperception. On top of that, partner relationships are inevitably political and back-stabbing is not unheard of.

By no means do all partners want or have this sort of relationship with their peers. One client said that it was very reassuring that she could call upon her peers to test out ideas, swap honest opinions about the workplace and make time to discuss things that are not work related. This is the human connection that makes work more fulfilling and rewarding. Having a good laugh with fellow peers featured very highly on her work based values and she was drawn to this particular firm because the staff knew how to relax and were encouraged to express themselves in a less business like way outside of client presence. These well chosen personal relationships can benefit the firm immensely and represent what is sometimes called social capital. Firms need to consider their value to business because of what can be achieved through them. Yet they do have their own risks and when things go sour the break-out can be very damaging and could even lead to spectacular business ruin as we have seen by firms disbanding entirely over a partner rift. There can be no question that peer relationships need a measu

It certainly goes without saying that camaraderie at the top nicely minimizes mistrust and friction. In any case who’s got time to waste on bickering when targets need to be met and you hold the rainmaker status in the firm with all its social obligations. Surely if you set the example and really talk to your co-partners so will your team do the same with each other at all levels? All the management handbooks tell us that top relations drive businesses and you are after all, part of the powerhouse behind business strategy and implementation.

Yet how often does strong bonding find itself at partner level? Partners do not always see themselves as part of a team and power struggles are often rife, especially at year end. Personal alliances are forged and some feel very territorial about hard won client accounts and thus arguments become inseparable from important business decisions. Partners will articulate their positions in the face of equally articulate opposition. This is with the backdrop of huge expectations put upon them to master vast amounts of complex materials in a short amount of time and provide effective solutions with clear cut answers for demanding clients. Consequently, difficult peer relationships can be a deep source of frustration for many at the top.

Is this unrest inevitable with the high stakes involved and strong personalities? We may be tempted by this viewpoint, but this cannot really be an accurate snapshot of the situation that prevails in the upper echelons. From personal conversations most of my client partners have very good relationships with their peers, but it is clear that there are some inevitable risks attached to this leadership relationship of equals. One partner said that because every action he takes has an important business effect, he feels he is under scrutiny all the time by fellow partners. He is not always in the mood to justify every decision he makes and feels his prized autonomy is under threat. A feeling of isolation is also sometimes magnified when there are the politics of dark motives and personal gain that manifest in a competitive and highly driven environment. Creating open handed dealings at partner level is arguably the most organizationally demanding challenge. Why are some partnerships so susceptible to fall out and yet others are phenomenally successful? © Shilpa Unalkat - 16/08/2006

When I asked several of my clients about this, I got some interesting feedback. Amongst the usual and predictable answers of open door policies, blue sky days and invitations to fun corporate entertainment jollies, one explanation stood out. Mark, an equity partner at a magic circle firm very candidly described how he has carefully cultivated peer relationships at work that are uncomplicated, unemotional and based as a means to an end. The value lies purely on getting what is needed from the other person and giving something back in return. He doesn’t have the time to develop a relationship based on shared hobbies, acquaintance of partner spouse or children. Everything he talks about with his peers is factual and impersonal and he finds this gets things done fast. Management gurus would call this a utilitarian approach and I wondered if there was more behind this convenient and some would say, possibly contrived interaction with work colleagues. When probed further he revealed that there was an underlying lack of mutual trust and he often had strong reservations about the competence and even motives of others at partner level. Interesting how keeping a distance from others in this way builds an invisible wall of self protection. Yet this works for him on a pragmatic level and it is far from a failure situation. People at his firm just get on with things. Perhaps this way of being – a little bit of aloofness comes with the territory here. Partner personalities combine a cocktail of strong opinions, powerful intellect and ambition, all certifying ingredients for outstanding leadership performance. This does not lend itself naturally to relationships based on shared feelings and mutual support. For certain, this sort of one dimensional interaction has its uses, but we need to recognise its limitations. Loyalty, friendship, discretion, mentorship and collegiate style connection is not expected and that in itself may lead to guarding of territories and hostility in some cases. At the centre of this relationship lies the phenomenon of trust – but is this a complete fantasy, as many firms exist without this managerial textbook ideal? Think about the practicalities of developing trust. It takes time, personal interaction (a better method than email) and a willingness to take risks. One false move and hard-won trust has gone. Contrast this with typical partner relationships, which are built on the run, often using impersonal means like blackberrys and frequently subject to doubt and misperception. On top of that, partner relationships are inevitably political and back-stabbing is not unheard of.

By no means do all partners want or have this sort of relationship with their peers. One client said that it was very reassuring that she could call upon her peers to test out ideas, swap honest opinions about the workplace and make time to discuss things that are not work related. This is the human connection that makes work more fulfilling and rewarding. Having a good laugh with fellow peers featured very highly on her work based values and she was drawn to this particular firm because the staff knew how to relax and were encouraged to express themselves in a less business like way outside of client presence. These well chosen personal relationships can benefit the firm immensely and represent what is sometimes called social capital. Firms need to consider their value to business because of what can be achieved through them. Yet they do have their own risks and when things go sour the break-out can be very damaging and could even lead to spectacular business ruin as we have seen by firms disbanding entirely over a partner rift. There can be no question that peer relationships need a measur

nships can be a deep source of frustration for many at the top.

Is this unrest inevitable with the high stakes involved and strong personalities? We may be tempted by this viewpoint, but this cannot really be an accurate snapshot of the situation that prevails in the upper echelons. From personal conversations most of my client partners have very good relationships with their peers, but it is clear that there are some inevitable risks attached to this leadership relationship of equals. One partner said that because every action he takes has an important business effect, he feels he is under scrutiny all the time by fellow partners. He is not always in the mood to justify every decision he makes and feels his prized autonomy is under threat. A feeling of isolation is also sometimes magnified when there are the politics of dark motives and personal gain that manifest in a competitive and highly driven environment. Creating open handed dealings at partner level is arguably the most organizationally demanding challenge. Why are some partnerships so susceptible to fall out and yet others are phenomenally successful? © Shilpa Unalkat - 16/08/2006

When I asked several of my clients about this, I got some interesting feedback. Amongst the usual and predictable answers of open door policies, blue sky days and invitations to fun corporate entertainment jollies, one explanation stood out. Mark, an equity partner at a magic circle firm very candidly described how he has carefully cultivated peer relationships at work that are uncomplicated, unemotional and based as a means to an end. The value lies purely on getting what is needed from the other person and giving something back in return. He doesn’t have the time to develop a relationship based on shared hobbies, acquaintance of partner spouse or children. Everything he talks about with his peers is factual and impersonal and he finds this gets things done fast. Management gurus would call this a utilitarian approach and I wondered if there was more behind this convenient and some would say, possibly contrived interaction with work colleagues. When probed further he revealed that there was an underlying lack of mutual trust and he often had strong reservations about the competence and even motives of others at partner level. Interesting how keeping a distance from others in this way builds an invisible wall of self protection. Yet this works for him on a pragmatic level and it is far from a failure situation. People at his firm just get on with things. Perhaps this way of being – a little bit of aloofness comes with the territory here. Partner personalities combine a cocktail of strong opinions, powerful intellect and ambition, all certifying ingredients for outstanding leadership performance. This does not lend itself naturally to relationships based on shared feelings and mutual support. For certain, this sort of one dimensional interaction has its uses, but we need to recognise its limitations. Loyalty, friendship, discretion, mentorship and collegiate style connection is not expected and that in itself may lead to guarding of territories and hostility in some cases. At the centre of this relationship lies the phenomenon of trust – but is this a complete fantasy, as many firms exist without this managerial textbook ideal? Think about the practicalities of developing trust. It takes time, personal interaction (a better method than email) and a willingness to take risks. One false move and hard-won trust has gone. Contrast this with typical partner relationships, which are built on the run, often using impersonal means like blackberrys and frequently subject to doubt and misperception. On top of that, partner relationships are inevitably political and back-stabbing is not unheard of.

By no means do all partners want or have this sort of relationship with their peers. One client said that it was very reassuring that she could call upon her peers to test out ideas, swap honest opinions about the workplace and make time to discuss things that are not work related. This is the human connection that makes work more fulfilling and rewarding. Having a good laugh with fellow peers featured very highly on her work based values and she was drawn to this particular firm because the staff knew how to relax and were encouraged to express themselves in a less business like way outside of client presence. These well chosen personal relationships can benefit the firm immensely and represent what is sometimes called social capital. Firms need to consider their value to business because of what can be achieved through them. Yet they do have their own risks and when things go sour the break-out can be very damaging and could even lead to spectacular business ruin as we have seen by firms disbanding entirely over a partner rift. There can be no question that peer relationships need a measu

nteresting feedback. Amongst the usual and predictable answers of open door policies, blue sky days and invitations to fun corporate entertainment jollies, one explanation stood out. Mark, an equity partner at a magic circle firm very candidly described how he has carefully cultivated peer relationships at work that are uncomplicated, unemotional and based as a means to an end. The value lies purely on getting what is needed from the other person and giving something back in return. He doesn’t have the time to develop a relationship based on shared hobbies, acquaintance of partner spouse or children. Everything he talks about with his peers is factual and impersonal and he finds this gets things done fast. Management gurus would call this a utilitarian approach and I wondered if there was more behind this convenient and some would say, possibly contrived interaction with work colleagues. When probed further he revealed that there was an underlying lack of mutual trust and he often had strong reservations about the competence and even motives of others at partner level. Interesting how keeping a distance from others in this way builds an invisible wall of self protection. Yet this works for him on a pragmatic level and it is far from a failure situation. People at his firm just get on with things. Perhaps this way of being – a little bit of aloofness comes with the territory here. Partner personalities combine a cocktail of strong opinions, powerful intellect and ambition, all certifying ingredients for outstanding leadership performance. This does not lend itself naturally to relationships based on shared feelings and mutual support. For certain, this sort of one dimensional interaction has its uses, but we need to recognise its limitations. Loyalty, friendship, discretion, mentorship and collegiate style connection is not expected and that in itself may lead to guarding of territories and hostility in some cases. At the centre of this relationship lies the phenomenon of trust – but is this a complete fantasy, as many firms exist without this managerial textbook ideal? Think about the practicalities of developing trust. It takes time, personal interaction (a better method than email) and a willingness to take risks. One false move and hard-won trust has gone. Contrast this with typical partner relationships, which are built on the run, often using impersonal means like blackberrys and frequently subject to doubt and misperception. On top of that, partner relationships are inevitably political and back-stabbing is not unheard of.

By no means do all partners want or have this sort of relationship with their peers. One client said that it was very reassuring that she could call upon her peers to test out ideas, swap honest opinions about the workplace and make time to discuss things that are not work related. This is the human connection that makes work more fulfilling and rewarding. Having a good laugh with fellow peers featured very highly on her work based values and she was drawn to this particular firm because the staff knew how to relax and were encouraged to express themselves in a less business like way outside of client presence. These well chosen personal relationships can benefit the firm immensely and represent what is sometimes called social capital. Firms need to consider their value to business because of what can be achieved through them. Yet they do have their own risks and when things go sour the break-out can be very damaging and could even lead to spectacular business ruin as we have seen by firms disbanding entirely over a partner rift. There can be no question that peer relationships need a measu

l and it is far from a failure situation. People at his firm just get on with things. Perhaps this way of being – a little bit of aloofness comes with the territory here. Partner personalities combine a cocktail of strong opinions, powerful intellect and ambition, all certifying ingredients for outstanding leadership performance. This does not lend itself naturally to relationships based on shared feelings and mutual support. For certain, this sort of one dimensional interaction has its uses, but we need to recognise its limitations. Loyalty, friendship, discretion, mentorship and collegiate style connection is not expected and that in itself may lead to guarding of territories and hostility in some cases. At the centre of this relationship lies the phenomenon of trust – but is this a complete fantasy, as many firms exist without this managerial textbook ideal? Think about the practicalities of developing trust. It takes time, personal interaction (a better method than email) and a willingness to take risks. One false move and hard-won trust has gone. Contrast this with typical partner relationships, which are built on the run, often using impersonal means like blackberrys and frequently subject to doubt and misperception. On top of that, partner relationships are inevitably political and back-stabbing is not unheard of.

By no means do all partners want or have this sort of relationship with their peers. One client said that it was very reassuring that she could call upon her peers to test out ideas, swap honest opinions about the workplace and make time to discuss things that are not work related. This is the human connection that makes work more fulfilling and rewarding. Having a good laugh with fellow peers featured very highly on her work based values and she was drawn to this particular firm because the staff knew how to relax and were encouraged to express themselves in a less business like way outside of client presence. These well chosen personal relationships can benefit the firm immensely and represent what is sometimes called social capital. Firms need to consider their value to business because of what can be achieved through them. Yet they do have their own risks and when things go sour the break-out can be very damaging and could even lead to spectacular business ruin as we have seen by firms disbanding entirely over a partner rift. There can be no question that peer relationships need a measu

misperception. On top of that, partner relationships are inevitably political and back-stabbing is not unheard of.

By no means do all partners want or have this sort of relationship with their peers. One client said that it was very reassuring that she could call upon her peers to test out ideas, swap honest opinions about the workplace and make time to discuss things that are not work related. This is the human connection that makes work more fulfilling and rewarding. Having a good laugh with fellow peers featured very highly on her work based values and she was drawn to this particular firm because the staff knew how to relax and were encouraged to express themselves in a less business like way outside of client presence. These well chosen personal relationships can benefit the firm immensely and represent what is sometimes called social capital. Firms need to consider their value to business because of what can be achieved through them. Yet they do have their own risks and when things go sour the break-out can be very damaging and could even lead to spectacular business ruin as we have seen by firms disbanding entirely over a partner rift. There can be no question that peer relationships need a measure of commitment and maintenance which might be a price too high for some. It may be fine to nurture family relationships, but to do the same at work might be way too much like hard work for some people. Perhaps there is an argument that one should decide at the very outset what sort of relationship needs to be created with individual peers and then stick to it so there is no confusion and expectations are clear cut. Whilst firms may continue to hold the view that any individual is indispensable, yet there is ample evidence around that strong, powerful relationships based on trust between individuals within the firm is the gel that holds it together and influences the way business is done and therefore ultimately its success.

For partnerships to work effectively the individual partners must be able to clearly communicate their ideas, to listen and be willing to disagree. Although it isn’t always easy, learning to appreciate each other’s differences reflects a partner’s ability to manage conflict. When conflict occurs those in leadership positions need to be able to embrace it rather than turn their back and hope it will go away. The successful partner welcomes conflict or at least tolerates it, knowing that if it is well managed it can be the source of change and innovation. Conflict management coaching or training is a useful starting point and can expedite this process.