Growth
Stating his case
How Thomas VanKirk developed a team approach that drives growth at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
By Brian Horn
Smart Business Pittsburgh | December 2007
When Thomas L. VanKirk accepted a promotion from chief operating officer to chairman and CEO of Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney PC in 2003, he sensed the firm needed some fine-tuning.
The law firm had grown rapidly in the 1980s, but by 2001, business was on a downturn, and VanKirk decided it needed to get
back to basics and make its core values mean more than just
words on a piece of paper. He wanted make sure everyone was on
the same page when it came to culture and values.
The firm had added so many people — including 130 attorneys
when it merged with Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling in 2006 —
from so many firms over the years that VanKirk wasn’t sure there
was really a common culture anymore. So to move the firm in the
right direction, he held a retreat and gathered input from employees on where they wanted to see Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney go
in the future.
Employees met for one day, then the shareholders gathered for
an additional day and a half. Those attending broke out into smaller groups and addressed some very specific topics relating to
growth and compensation matters, which got everyone talking.
To address the core values, VanKirk put together a committee,
which presented what it believed the firm’s values should be.
“We used a very interactive, computerized method of getting as
much buy-in as possible,” VanKirk says. “But it was all made
possible because we also had the breakout groups that were
having everybody getting to know each other a little bit better.”
Everyone had handsets at the interactive program, allowing all of
them to give their opinions about what kind of firm they wanted to
be by pushing ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ buttons to answer questions. The results
were then displayed on a computer screen for everyone to see, giving VanKirk real-time feedback.
“We could really get people involved,” he says. “That way they
aren’t being lectured to, and that way they don’t have to sit there
and be forced to raise their hand and be afraid of saying the wrong
thing. Rather, they can register their opinion, and we achieved
quite a bit of unanimity.”
After the retreat, the firm adopted core values and operating principles, then built the rest of its strategic plan around
those.
Dealing with change
With the plan established, the next step was to make sure everyone understood it and bought in to it.
“It was easy to get people to say they had bought in,” VanKirk
says. “It is more difficult to constantly reinforce it and constantly
get people thinking about it. The only way you can really do it is to
make everybody part of the team and effectively always communicate what it is.
“Constantly preach the core values, use it in recruiting, emphasize it to new people you are bringing in at every step of the way,
emphasize it at every level of the organization and then, as you do
new strategic plans, communicate to everybody what is in that
plan.”
Most people bought in to the plan, but not everyone did, and VanKirk says one of the most difficult tasks was cutting ties with
those who weren’t on board. He made decisions on two or three
people within about a month.
“I was fairly well aware of a couple of people who behaviorally
had shown they were never going to buy in to this kind of concept,” he says. “Others you really see evolve over the course of
time just by what their actions are.
“We also have a peer review system in our firm that all shareholders go through. I am not part of the committee that does the
peer review. But, you also ascertain from that peer review system
who the people are that just don’t want to go along. There are others who then end up knowing what is being expected and do start
looking elsewhere, and that is fine with us. If there are people that
don’t want to buy in to it and are going to be happier elsewhere, far
be it from me to delay their exit.”
As part of the process, VanKirk says Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney worked with employees on how they were fitting in to the
culture and provided them feedback as a development tool.
“We ascertain exactly what we believe their weaknesses to be,
where they are going wrong,” he says. “We sit down — and,
many times, it’s me personally — sit down with the individual,
usually with the practice group leader in which that individual
is, and tell them, here are the things they have to improve. Some
readily jump in. We have some tremendous success stories. You
invest so much money in developing people, it is well worth the
effort.
“But, there are a given number of people who just are not able
either to accept the fact they have those weaknesses or deliberately choose not to, and either don’t correct them, in which case
we have to make the decision, or say it’s not worth it to them to try
to correct it, in which case they make the decision to leave. You
have to make sure you communicate to them exactly what the
weaknesses are in fairness to them and give them a chance, in my
opinion, to try to correct it.”
VanKirk says it’s different for each person, but in most cases,
employees were given at least six months to change their behavior.
“I don’t think you can expect miracles in changing human behavior in much less than six months,” he says.
VanKirk says it wasn’t just one factor but many across the board
that showed him that some employees would not be heading in the
new direction with the firm.
“For the most part, it was a total inability to put the firm’s interest ahead of their own, and it would be manifested by not complying with different things in the area of billing, paying attention
to collections, following firm procedures on intake and taking in
too much bad or unprofitable work,” he says.
There were also attorneys who were not organizing themselves
to practice law and deliver quality legal services or who had complaints filed by clients as to what they were doing. And although
the process weeded out some bad seeds, VanKirk says that there
were people who were considered good attorneys and big business producers who were let go, as well.
“It is difficult because, clearly, there can be the argument that it
has a bottom-line effect,” he says. “But what the goal of the
organization should be, in my view, is to become strong enough
financially that you do have the ability to make those difficult
decisions and let people who are merely producing revenue, but
otherwise are failing their partners, that you do have the ability
to let them go. When you are strong financially, it makes the decision a lot easier.”
Hiring for the team approach
Once the people resisting change were gone, VanKirk was able to
focus on finding new employees who fit in to the culture, and the
firm immediately started recruiting attorneys based on its strategic
plan and core values.
VanKirk compares compiling the members of his team to a professional sports team finding the right players.
“It’s a little bit like the NFL or MLB or NBA,” he says. “You are
out recruiting, and what you are trying to do is to pick the best
athletes available in hopes you can develop them so they become
very good partners.”
To find those people, VanKirk uses the interview process to weed
out those who are just telling him what they think he wants to hear.
“You can ask them what is important to them,” he says. “You can
ask them in their prior job, what did they like about their prior job,
or what didn’t they like about their prior job, even before you tell
them a lot about yourself.
“The secret is finding out how many people are being totally
truthful with you, or how many people have read your Web site,
see what is important to you and are just feeding back to you
what you want to hear. But, that is really just asking the questions, trying to get the people relaxed and then making your best
judgment. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, and
everyone is going to make mistakes in the hiring process, but if
you really pay attention and get them talking and have them say
what is important to them, it usually comes out. We have a pretty
good track record of making correct hires in that regard.”
VanKirk says making the change to a team approach and
bringing in employees who exemplified that approach has benefited the firm through growth, as well as in recruiting, building client relationships and getting involved in the community.
“There are a number of people we have found out in the marketplace who want to come to us because they like the approach we
are taking,” he says. “Our corporate clients take note of the fact
that we, as a law firm, view ourselves as important members of the
community who do give back to the community. It keeps the
respect level up.
“The team approach has been very well-received. I visited a
number of CEOs and general counsel of corporations who found
it somewhat unique that we, as a law firm, would come out and
try to understand what their needs were. Not that we were out
there trying to sell them whatever we had but that we wanted to
know what their needs are.”
With this approach, clients get better, more targeted service, and
the firm grows as a result. And growth allows the firm to add more
talent, which further increases the level of service.
“It has enabled us to recruit other very outstanding practitioners,
and the more practitioners we can have to serve the various needs
of the clients is always going to be a benefit to them,” he says.
VanKirk says that if the changes hadn’t been made, the firm still
would be functioning but maybe not growing the way it has recently. Revenue in 2004 was $153 million, but by 2006, that had
increased to $272 million. In the last four years, the number of
attorneys has grown from 330 to 550.
“I don’t think people would have enjoyed practicing law as much,
if it had been as it was as they do now,” VanKirk says. “Talent can
only take you so far. Even though you have the talent, you don’t
have the ability to add the additional talent that you need to unless
you have the kind of culture people want to join.”
HOW TO REACH: Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, www.buchananingersoll.com
