Case Studies
Partner progression and retention
Retaining a high-value senior professional after her promotion was unanimously rejected
A short, focused intervention helped a strong fee earner understand the Board’s reservations, rebuild her case and secure unanimous admission to equity.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY
The challenge
A highly valued salaried partner at a growing UK law firm applied to join the equity partnership.
Her commercial performance was strong. She billed consistently, worked exceptionally hard and had become an important part of the firm’s future plans. She believed that her record made promotion the logical next step.
The Board disagreed. Her application was rejected unanimously.
The decision was a serious setback for the individual and created an immediate retention problem for the firm. She had credible opportunities elsewhere and felt that her contribution had not been recognised. The firm wanted to retain her, but the Board could not support the application simply because losing her would be commercially inconvenient.
The difficulty was not her technical ability or work ethic. Her original presentation had not given the Board sufficient confidence that she was ready for the wider judgement, leadership and commercial responsibilities of equity.
What was at stake
Without a credible route forward, the firm risked losing a proven fee earner, disrupting established client relationships and incurring the considerable cost of replacing her.
There was also a wider succession issue. A poorly handled decision could damage confidence in the firm’s promotion process and discourage other ambitious senior professionals.
Robin’s involvement
Robin worked with her over four focused sessions.
The first task was to establish why the original application had failed. This required a candid examination of how she presented herself, how she responded under scrutiny and whether she had relied too heavily on past performance to make the case for future ownership.
They then rebuilt the application from the Board’s perspective.
The revised case showed not only what she had achieved, but how she would contribute as an owner. It addressed the firm’s wider priorities, demonstrated greater commercial and leadership awareness, and dealt directly with the concerns that had previously been left unanswered.
The work was not about rehearsing a more polished presentation. It was about ensuring that she demonstrated the judgement, self-awareness and credibility expected of an equity partner.
The result
When she presented her case again, the Board approved her admission to equity unanimously.
The firm retained an important fee earner and avoided the commercial and cultural disruption of an unnecessary departure. The individual entered the partnership with a clearer understanding of the responsibilities involved and a stronger relationship with the Board.
The engagement also strengthened the firm’s succession pipeline. A potentially damaging promotion dispute was converted into a successful transition to ownership.
Prioritisation, delegation and operational resilience
Reducing the firm’s dependence on an overloaded department head
Clearer priorities, stronger delegation and more precise communication reduced delays and complaints while allowing a senior leader to return to the work that required her expertise.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY
The challenge
The head of an important department had become the person to whom almost every difficult task was directed.
She was highly capable, conscientious and committed to doing the job properly. When a colleague struggled, she stepped in. When work was returned below the required standard, she often completed it herself. When a new request arrived, she accepted it before considering whether it belonged with her.
Her reliability had gradually created an unsustainable operating model.
Too much work depended on her personal involvement. Strategic priorities were repeatedly displaced by urgent requests, including work that should have been delegated or handled elsewhere. The pressure was affecting her health, leading to periods of absence that increased the backlog waiting for her return.
Delays were becoming more frequent, members of the team were not developing sufficient independence and client complaints had begun to rise.
What was at stake
The immediate concern was the leader’s health, but the wider business risk was significant.
The department had become overly dependent on one person. Service quality, workflow and client responsiveness were all vulnerable whenever she was unavailable.
There was also a capability problem. By repeatedly rescuing work, she was unintentionally preventing other members of the team from taking greater responsibility and developing the skills the department needed.
A period of leave or temporary reduction in workload would not have resolved the underlying issue. Unless the way work was prioritised, delegated and supervised changed, the same pattern would resume.
Robin’s involvement
Robin helped her separate genuinely high-value work from tasks she had simply become accustomed to absorbing.
They established clearer criteria for deciding what required her direct involvement, what could be delegated and what should be declined or redirected. This allowed her to protect time for the strategic, technical and client-critical responsibilities attached to her role.
The work on delegation was deliberately practical. She began delegating earlier, defining the expected outcome more clearly and checking that instructions had been understood rather than assuming that they had.
She also stopped treating every late request as an emergency. Greater clarity around ownership, deadlines and standards reduced the number of problems that automatically found their way back to her.
The result
The leader regained control of her workload and was able to devote more time to the matters that genuinely required her expertise.
Instructions became clearer, colleagues took greater responsibility and the department became less reliant on one individual. Delays reduced and client complaints fell materially.
The benefit to the firm went beyond avoiding burnout. It created a more resilient department, improved the consistency of delivery and strengthened the capability of the wider team.
Senior leadership conflict
Resolving a conflict that had obstructed collaboration for years
A carefully structured intervention restored direct communication between two department heads without the need for prolonged mediation or formal escalation.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY
The challenge
Two senior department heads who were required to work closely together had developed an intense dislike of one another.
Over time, direct communication had almost stopped. Information was passed through other people, decisions were delayed and colleagues had learnt to work around the relationship rather than expect the two leaders to resolve it.
The conflict had continued for several years.
Both individuals remained valuable to the organisation, but their behaviour was affecting the wider leadership team. Their departments were operating in silos and other senior people were being drawn into the dispute as intermediaries.
By the time Robin became involved, the managing partner considered the situation unacceptable. It could no longer be ignored, but an ill-prepared confrontation risked hardening both positions and making the relationship worse.
What was at stake
Conflict at this level rarely remains a private disagreement.
It consumes management time, slows decisions and encourages teams to align themselves with one side or the other. Ordinary operational disagreements become politically charged, while people become increasingly cautious about what they communicate and through whom.
The organisation risked losing the contribution of one or both department heads. It also risked normalising behaviour that would not have been accepted from anyone more junior.
Robin’s involvement
Robin met each department head separately before bringing them together.
The private conversations allowed him to understand how each person interpreted the history of the dispute, what they believed the other had done and what they feared would happen if the matter were discussed openly.
It became clear that much of the hostility had grown through accumulated misunderstandings, assumptions that had never been tested and conversations that had repeatedly been avoided.
The joint discussion was then structured carefully.
Rather than beginning with accusations, each person was asked to identify specific qualities they respected in the other. They then described a small number of behaviours that needed to change, using clear examples rather than general criticism.
Starting with genuine professional respect altered the tone. It allowed both individuals to discuss the deterioration in the relationship without either being publicly defeated or forced into a defensive position.
The result
Direct communication resumed and the central conflict was resolved.
When Robin contacted the two leaders one month later, both agreed that no further intervention was required.
The organisation no longer needed to accommodate or manage around an avoidable dispute between two senior people. Decisions could be addressed directly, collaboration was restored and management time was no longer being consumed by acting as an intermediary.
The value of the intervention was not its complexity. It was the ability to identify the actual source of the conflict, prepare both parties properly and create a conversation in which difficult matters could be addressed without unnecessary loss of face.
Executive communication and early escalation
Helping a finance director become easier to engage before problems became crises
Targeted work on communication style helped a technically strong executive preserve his professional rigour while making it easier for colleagues to involve him sooner.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY
The challenge
The managing partner of a large professional organisation was concerned about its finance director.
He was technically strong, conscientious and highly capable of dealing with complex financial issues. He also preferred to work with minimal interruption and spent much of his time alone in his office.
This helped him concentrate, but it created an unintended barrier.
Colleagues became reluctant to approach him. Questions that should have been raised early were delayed, and by the time some matters reached the finance director, they had developed into significantly more serious problems.
The issue was not a lack of expertise or commitment. His working preferences and communication style were making him less accessible than the role required.
What was at stake
A finance director cannot provide effective oversight if colleagues involve the finance function only after a problem has escalated.
The organisation faced slower decision-making, avoidable financial surprises and an increasing separation between finance and the operational teams it needed to support.
Simply instructing the finance director to “be more approachable” would not have solved the problem. It did not explain what he was doing differently from his colleagues, or how he could adapt without feeling that he was being asked to compromise his standards or adopt an artificial personality.
Robin’s involvement
Robin used a small number of focused communication assessments to examine how the finance director preferred to absorb information, reach conclusions and express his views.
The results showed that his preferences were particularly pronounced and differed substantially from those of many colleagues.
This provided an objective explanation for the difficulty. Communication that felt precise, efficient and appropriately direct to him could be experienced by others as remote, abrupt or difficult to engage with.
Robin then worked with him on different ways of sequencing, framing and delivering the same information.
The aim was not to dilute the content or simplify his analysis. It was to make his expertise easier for different audiences to access, understand and act upon.
The result
The finance director recognised that adapting his communication did not require him to weaken his analysis or become someone he was not.
He developed practical ways to vary the tone, structure and delivery of his communication while preserving the technical rigour expected of his role.
This gave him a credible route towards becoming more accessible and improving the flow of information between finance and the rest of the organisation.
WHAT CLIENTS SAY AFTER THE WORK
Real Results From Real Clients
A CONFIDENTIAL FIRST CONVERSATION
LET'S TALK
If this is relevant to something you’re currently dealing with, the next step is a confidential conversation without obligation. There’s no sales process, just a chance to work out whether Robin’s involvement would add anything.
Every enquiry is treated in confidence from the outset. Share a few details below and Robin will respond personally, usually by email, with suitable times for an initial conversation.