Non-performing partners create resentment, weaken accountability, and send dangerous signals throughout an AEC firm.
There are few things more miserable in the AEC business than having a non-performing partner. I’d almost rather have a root canal with no Novocaine while listening to a four hour city council meeting on stormwater runoff than deal with one of these situations. Almost.
The problem is partners in most privately-held firms are hard to get rid of. They usually own stock. They often have employment agreements. Sometimes they helped start the company. Sometimes they’re related to someone. Sometimes they were once a major rainmaker who has slowly devolved into an overpaid office decoration who wanders the halls telling the same stories from 1997 while everyone avoids eye contact with them.
And yet, this problem is incredibly common.
In AEC firms, we tend to tolerate non-performers longer than almost any other kind of business. We are loyal to a fault. We confuse longevity with value. We mistake being well-liked for being productive. We think because someone once carried the load they should be allowed to stop carrying anything forever while everyone else pulls the wagon uphill.
That may sound harsh, but it’s true.
A business partnership or, more commonly, a closely-held corporation is not a retirement program disguised as leadership. It’s not an adult daycare center for former top performers. And it’s definitely not the original copy of the U.S. Constitution where every sentence is untouchable and frozen for all eternity.
If you have a partner who isn’t producing, isn’t managing, isn’t selling, isn’t mentoring, isn’t innovating, and basically spends most of the day microwaving leftovers in the break room and internet shopping for their antique car collection, you have a problem that will not magically improve by itself.
Here’s what usually happens instead:
- Everyone else gets resentful.
- Younger people notice the double standard.
- The good performers start questioning leadership credibility.
- The non-performer slowly becomes even less productive
- Compensation systems get distorted.
- Decision making gets slower.
- Accountability disappears.
- Eventually the firm develops a culture where people think surviving is the same thing as contributing.
That last one is deadly. I’ve seen firms where one non-performing partner turned into three, then five, then eight. Before long the place starts to resemble a half empty country club on a Tuesday afternoon where nobody seems to have anywhere to be, nobody’s moving very fast, and everyone looks like they’ve completely given up on ever accomplishing anything again.
The first thing you have to do is quit avoiding the conversation. A shocking number of firm principals will spend years talking around the issue instead of directly addressing it. They hold secret meetings. They complain privately. They hint. They gossip. They conduct endless “strategic planning retreats” at hotels with bad coffee and stale muffins where everyone dances around the real issue like middle school kids at their first school dance.
Meanwhile, nothing changes.
You have to define what contribution actually means. Revenue generation. Value of work brought in. Project management. Technical leadership. Staff development. Recruiting. Client retention. Something measurable. Something observable. Something beyond “being a good guy” or a “nice woman.”
Because every non-performing partner in America is apparently “a great guy (or girl).”
Wonderful. Then invite him or her to your cookout. But don’t keep paying them partner-level compensation if they’re contributing less than your marketing coordinator.
AEC firms get themselves in trouble because partner expectations are often fuzzy. Nobody wants to spell things out. That’s a mistake. Every partner should know exactly what is expected of them. If they fail to meet those expectations, there should be consequences.
And no, I’m not saying every older partner has to maintain the exact same workload forever. People evolve. Roles change. Senior leaders can provide tremendous value through mentoring, strategy, recruiting, and relationship management. But they actually have to do those things. They cannot simply become ceremonial mascots who drift around the office offering opinions on everyone else’s work while producing none of their own.
One of the biggest mistakes firms make is allowing compensation to become disconnected from contribution. Once that happens, resentment spreads fast. High performers start mentally checking out. The culture deteriorates. The ambitious younger people leave. Then leadership sits around wondering why turnover is high while continuing to protect someone whose biggest accomplishment this week was forwarding an article from Engineering News Record to six people.
Here’s another reality. If someone has checked out mentally, they probably aren’t coming back. You can coach them. Encourage them. Threaten them. Send them to leadership seminars at airport hotels with motivational speakers named Brad. But in many cases, the fire is already out. At that point, the kindest thing for everyone may be negotiating an exit.
That sounds cruel until you realize keeping someone in a role where they no longer contribute meaningfully is actually more cruel. It hurts the firm. It hurts the staff. And frankly, it often hurts the individual, too. Nobody wants to become the person everyone whispers about after meetings.
The healthiest firms maintain accountability at every level. Especially at the top. Maybe most importantly at the top.
Because once the partners stop performing, the rest of the organization eventually follows them right off the cliff.
 |
Mark Zweig is Zweig Group’s chairman and founder. Contact him at mzweig@zweiggroup.com. |