THE PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS MODEL: EVOLVING TO STAY RELEVANT?

A series of questions and recommendations from the leading minds in the field

Professional networks have become the norm when it comes to connecting independent professional services firms in order for them to better serve clients and offer global solutions. As I indicated in my article “Making Professional Networks Work” when both the member firms and the network have shared objectives, long-term commitments, and clear expectations, that formula can be extremely powerful. However, that’s easier said than done! Many member firms I’ve worked with are struggling to justify their network involvement and investment, and are increasingly questioning the validity of the network model.

During my extensive experience with networks and their member firms, I’ve had the privilege to collaborate with a number of forward thinking network leaders. James Mendelssohn is certainly one of them. James is a Chairman of one such network, MSI Global Alliance (MSI) and a highly sought-after consultant focused on network management and leadership issues with Firm Management Associates. I was thrilled when James recently agreed to share some of the content he’s developing - alongside Quentin Vaile, former head of the international network at the UK law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner - on the future model of professional networks. Below, please find the first several articles of the series. I hope that you will find their thoughts and recommendations of interest and will follow their writings, as this blog will.

“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – A VIABLE BUSINESS MODEL FOR THE FUTURE?”

This is the first in a series of blogs that will look at the world of professional services networks; their future; different business models that can be followed to ensure their success; and what member firms need to do to capitalise on their membership of such networks.

There are some strong networks out there, and others that are struggling. There are some good member firms of networks, and others that are members for entirely the wrong reasons or with totally unrealistic expectations. We’ll be looking at all of this, and we won’t be pulling our punches. Some may find our comments uncomfortable and will undoubtedly stick their heads (even further) into the sand. Others, I hope, will accept them in the spirit with which they are offered and consider changes that may lead to the long-term sustainability of their organisations.

For the full article, click HERE.

“DO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS HAVE A FUTURE?”

The professional services world is changing – and probably faster today than at any time in the past. The principal reasons for this are twofold; and these converging pressures create the perfect storm for change. First, client needs are changing. One in five SMEs in the UK now trades overseas. And if you discount the high number of very small traders who are never going to look beyond these shores, then the proportion is clearly much higher amongst those businesses that many professional services firms would consider to be prime targets. Demand from clients for their advisers to be able to respond to an international enquiry has never been higher. Secondly, the professions are changing. Of course, the professions are always changing, but the pace of change within the professions at a local and national level is now having a very marked impact on the way in which firms are able to service their clients overseas.

If you take these two factors within the context of many people, in both their personal and business lives, believing that big is not always best (just look at the shift in retailing patterns over recent years), then the need both for networks to look critically at themselves, and also for those firms that either within a network or considering joining one, to review their motivation, and see whether their objectives are being met, has never been stronger.

For the full article, click HERE.

“CHANGING THE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – ONE FIRM, ONE VOTE”

‘Partnership is not a great management approach at a single office level. And when you translate that into the international arena, it is a disaster. Democracy within the typical network business model is all very well in theory, but in practice …’ That comment from my previous blog certainly struck a chord, and so for the next few blogs, I plan to focus on various aspects of network governance where democracy sometimes emerges … but not always with the desired results.

With many networks set up as membership organisations, the concept of member participation in the governance process is often embodied in the constitution. Indeed, I know of one network where each member firm, whatever their size, gets one vote on each important decision. And, if the network wishes to appoint a new member firm, then 75% of the membership has to vote in favour. Very democratic, perhaps, but a complete nightmare. Not just because of the administrative problem of trying to get that number of firms to actually vote, but it totally undermines the position of the team whose task it is to appoint new members. What do people from the other side of the world know about a particular firm that someone who has visited and reviewed that firm do not?

For the full article, click HERE.

CHANGING THE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – WHO SITS ON YOUR BOARD?

The ‘one firm, one vote’ concept, still adopted by many groups (largely because of their inability to change rather than a belief that this is a good model for any other than the smallest firms), may appear to be democratic, but in reality it simply hinders the logical decision-making process. Some groups have managed to vest the management of the group to a small Board of Directors, and they will normally have significant powers, with only key issues being put to the membership as a whole. And therein lies the problem. Or, in fact, two problems.

First, while day-to-day management becomes more efficient, fundamental issues of change remain within the domain of the membership as a whole, with all their diverse interests. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and member firms in membership organisations are primarily driven by the interests of their particular firm, rather than the organisation as a whole. That’s fine if votes on key issues are decided by a simple majority, but I know of at least one large network that requires a 75% majority on any decision of substance.

Secondly, it is fine to vest management in a Board of Directors, but who sits on that Board? Well, almost without exception, the Board comprises senior partners from a number of the larger member firms, together with the senior employee, normally the Chief Executive or Executive Director. Whilst these are normally, I am sure, worthy men and women, there is absolutely no doubt that the most important thing in their business lives will be their own firm, and not the membership organisation of which their firm is a member. So unless the situation is well managed, there is an inevitable conflict of interests.
…
The more ‘corporate’ the structure can become, with directors who really distinguish between their different roles, the more likely it is that the network will succeed and flourish.

For the complete article, click HERE.

© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved

By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com