This Legal Week article discusses techniques for achieving that notorious "buy-in" for decisions where the partnership essentially has to embark on long-term changes.  I will claim to stand second to none in my appreciation of the thorniness of achieving true partnership embrace of a long-term change strategy, but I nevertheless found the article, fascinating as its topic is, curiously inert.

The problem may be as simple as the author's self-serving perspective:  He's apparently an advisor to law firms who is recommending that, at a retreat to consider such major decisions, the firm employ the objectivity of someone with "no axe to grind" as a facilitator of the discussion.  [Perhaps I should write an article recommending established legal bloggers should be chosen as such facilitators.] 

But beyond that, the author sticks to process tools and stops short of wrestling with what it means to be subtly attuned to the partnership's moods, its fears and aspirations, its attention-deficit-disorder coupled with its laser-like focus when it so chooses.  In a word, he stops short of life.

But the gravity of this issue cannot be overstated; think of this post as a reminder of its importance and a vow to find more thoughtful approaches.