How Law Firms Can Avoid “Collaboration Drag”: The Keys to High-Quality Decision- Making

Fri, Mar 28th, 2025 | by Miles Mediation and Arbitration | Article | Social Share

Although law firms recognize that collaboration is the key to effective decision-making, some firms have also realized that “collaboration drag”, attending too many meetings, seeking too much feedback from peers, unclear or no agendas, and no clear responsibility for the decisions can stifle the decision-making process, not help it. The June 24, 2024 issue of the “Harvard Business Review” discussed a study released by Gartner in London on May 14, 2024 revealing that 84% of marketers reported experiencing high “collaboration drag” from cross-functional work. The authors of the Harvard Business Review article stated that when collaboration drag is high, businesses are 37% less likely to exceed their revenue and profit targets, failing at the very things their lofty cross-functional agendas are meant to achieve. Although the Gartner study and survey focused on marketers, collaboration drag can affect all organizations, including law firms. Understanding why it occurs, and how to avoid it, can improve collaboration and collaborative decision-making at every level.

Collaboration Helps Create High-Quality Decision-Making

Effective collaboration cannot be artificially imposed upon the law firm.; creating high-quality decision-making processes requires a lot of thought and intentional implementation. But it is a worthwhile endeavor because collaboration is the key to high-quality decision-making. It results in better decisions, greater transparency, and increased acceptance of and commitment to decisions made by the teams.

When considering the Gartner study, there are several questions to consider:

Were the marketers invited to meetings unnecessarily?
Were the marketers invited to meetings where they had a stake in the outcome? Did they feel their opinions were sought and valued? In the case of the law firm, invite those who have a stake in the outcome (that may be all equity partners), or those whose input is sought and needed to help make sure the best decision is made.
Were the goals and reasons for the meetings, respective roles, accountability for the ultimate decision, and the timelines for decision and implementation clearly established and communicated?
Were the organization’s cultures conducive to maximizing the involvement of all the stakeholders? Does the law firm culture invite healthy debate, disagreement, but eventual consensus-building?
Were the marketers willing to speak up, or were they afraid they would “rock the boat” or cause conflict if they did? In the case of lawyers, if they are not willing to speak up, they may be fearful of questioning authority. Maybe they should not be invited to the meeting, or the culture of the firm does not encourage debate and dissenting views.

One of the primary reasons participants feel that meetings are a waste of time is because they feel have no role in the meetings. They don’t feel their input is being sought or they are afraid to speak up for fear of being viewed as questioning authority. For law firm associates who often rely on partners for work assignments, the idea of questioning authority can be even more daunting. Before meaningful debate and dialogue will happen, the culture of the firm must be conducive to meeting participants speaking up, constructively debating ideas, and eventually reaching a consensus all stakeholders support. Also, effective collaborators must be conflict-competent and willing to share divergent views in a way that is viewed as helping the team arrive at the best decision. People want to feel like they are contributing, even if their ideas are not ultimately selected.

Enhancing the Quality of Decision-Making

In his book, “Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer – Managing for Conflict and Consensus,” author Michael A. Roberto says there are two fundamental ways leaders can enhance the quality of decision-making. First, they must cultivate “constructive conflict” in order to enhance the level of critical and divergent thinking, while simultaneously building consensus in order to facilitate the timely and efficient implementation of the choices they make. Leaders must also determine “how to decide”, which involves determining who should be in meetings; determining whether the organization’s culture or climate is ready for rigorous debate, dissent, and disagreement; and determining whether the stakeholders are willing to constructively dissent but rally around the consensus decision once it is made. This is critically important — Roberto cites several examples of tragedies including the 2003 Columbia Shuttle disaster and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill which could possibly have been averted had stakeholders been willing to speak up and question a decision — but people didn’t because they were afraid of “rocking the boat.” Their work cultures did not encourage questioning authority or engaging in robust dialogue and debate.

Only by having this kind of robust dialogue, including dissent, can law firms or other organizations get the highest quality decision-making. So how do law firms create the kind of culture necessary to encourage and respect this robust dialogue and sharing of divergent views and opinions? This type of culture does not happen on its own. Leaders within the law firm must encourage, model, and in fact, “cultivate” a culture in which stakeholders are encouraged to share divergent views.

Consider a Devil’s Advocate

One way law firms can encourage dissent and debate is to appoint a “devil’s advocate” when considering important decisions. Roberto cautions that the devil’s advocacy must be constructive. The objective is to encourage divergent thinking and to open new lines of inquiry, not for the devil’s advocate to persuade everyone to adopt his or her point of view; to create the robust dialogue and influence the process, but not dictate the outcome; to generate options, but not tear down existing proposals without generating new alternatives; and to ask lots of questions to generate information for the group to consider. The devil’s advocate should be a team member who will be “heard” (such as a respected partner or senior associate) and should not have an opinion of his or her own but rather encourage the team or group to come up with the best decision.

Law firms might take this one step further by recommending that the firm rotate the role of devil’s advocate among the respected members of the firm. Having one person always serving in the devil’s advocate role can lead to that person being viewed as the negative “naysayer” who is “no longer one of us” (like an internal affairs officer in a police department). By rotating the role, the group understands that the person’s job that day is to help the group make a better decision. The law firm may choose to bring in an outside, skilled facilitator, who can help the group generate the robust dialogue and arrive at a consensus plan for implementation. Law firms sometimes hire law firm consultants for weekend retreats; this may be an opportunity to employ the devil’s advocate the firm needs for an objective view.

Making Meetings More Effective

The Gartner study highlighted a genuine concern that organizations face — including overburdening its high performers with too many meetings and insisting on excessive peer feedback. Law firms should examine who should be in which meetings and only include those who have something to contribute and a stake in the outcome. All meetings should have a clear, pre-distributed agenda which includes the roles of each participant, authority and accountability for the ultimate decision, and timelines (deadlines) for decision and implementation. Law firms should also cultivate a culture that encourages divergent thoughts and ideas from stakeholders.

Because equity partners in law firms are essentially the “owners” of the law firm, the foundation for good decision-making is the firm’s ability to build consensus. Although some firms delegate decisions to an executive committee, in many firms, the equity partners still make the major decisions of the firm and do so by achieving consensus. Lawyers generally want to be a part of decisions that affect them, and they want to be heard.

Is it a fast and efficient way of making decisions? No, but fortunately, unlike publicly traded companies which have the time pressures of quarterly earnings releases and short-term performance, law firms have the time for full debate, dissent, and building eventual consensus, knowing that the decisions may be very long-term decisions. And the concept of “dissent” does not have the negative connotation with lawyers that it may have generally. Lawyers are accustomed to considering dissenting opinions, and know that the dissenter has often seen things, or thought of things, that everyone else has missed. At the core of the consensus-building process is mutual respect and trust, things that enable lawyers to practice together for very long periods of time.

The Power of Consensus

Finally, organizations of all types face collaboration drag. Law firms are no different. Partners and other law firm leaders can help avoid it by being thoughtful about how meetings are conducted and creating high quality decision-making processes that foster effective collaboration. Lawyers do not need to be distracted by unproductive meetings, and yet they are highly invested stakeholders whose perspectives are essential to their firm’s decision-making processes. Building consensus among them can only help strengthen the firm they are part of.

*Originally published in Law360 and reprinted with permission.

About Steve Groom

Steve Groom was introduced to mediation in Florida in the late ’80s while serving as general counsel in the SunTrust Banks system. Since then, he has participated in over 2,300 mediations and arbitrations, either as a neutral or an advocate. Steve is a Rule 31 Mediator in Tennessee and has mediated complex business and commercial disputes, personal injury cases, franchise disputes, medical negligence cases, civil rights matters, contract disputes, and more. His business mediations have included partnership dissolutions, disputes between physician practice groups, and disputes between real estate developers. In the mid-’90s, Steve served on a committee of the United States District Court to provide recommendations about introducing mediation to the Middle District of Tennessee federal courts.