Can we all agree that "leadership" is an indispensable ingredient that can separate the truly exceptional firms from the wannabes?  Yes, thank you.  Now, can we define "leadership?"  I for one cannot, but I usually turn to my favorite troika of wise men on this topic (among many others) for insights and "ah-ha!" observations:  Warren Bennis, Peter Drucker, and David Maister.

One belief about leadership which they share is that leaders can be, if not exactly "made," then cultivated, trained, developed, and nurtured:  If there is essentially no raw material to be worked with, developing a leader is a lost cause.  But given two more or less equally intelligent, talented, personable, and ambitious 20-something's, the one who works in a firm that takes professional development seriously will be a far more effective (and popular) leader 30 years later than the one who goes into  a sink-or-swim environment.

The stages in ascending the ladder from leading one person—oneself—through cultivating professional self-discipline and motivation, to leading an entire firm with a combination of cultural stewardship and inspirational vision, are nicely described here.  "Growing Leaders 101," if you will.  By itself the article is scarcely groundbreaking, but that is precisely why I bring it to your attention.  Simply put, it is alien thinking to most law firms to propose they embark on leadership development.

Contrast this deep assumption of the profession—that leaders will naturally emerge from the rocky soil of the associate ranks, without cultivation or fertilization—with the approach McKinsey, Goldman-Sachs, or Procter & Gamble take to developing young talent.  Now compare the perceived talent and professionalism of the senior managerial ranks of those firms with that of comparably pre-eminent law firms.   The difference is not, in short, an accident.