.png)
The Leadership Problem Most Firms Misdiagnose
- Kelly Margani
- 6 days ago
- 4 min read
By Kelly Margani
Part 2 of a 3-part blog series
Read part 1 here
Leadership Problems Rarely Start Where We Think They Do
In Part 1 of this series, we explored the idea that leadership isn’t a promotion—it’s a practice.
And one of the most important leadership practices in today’s legal environment is creating clarity.
Because while many firms believe they’re dealing with performance problems, communication problems, or people problems, what they’re often experiencing is something else entirely:
Misalignment.
Law firms are filled with smart, capable, hardworking people. Which is exactly why leadership breakdowns inside firms can be so difficult to diagnose accurately.
When things begin feeling harder than they should, the instinct is often to focus on individuals.
Performance feels inconsistent.
Communication starts breaking down.
Teams seem disconnected.
Tension increases.
Progress slows.
Leaders become frustrated that expectations aren’t being met, while team members feel increasingly uncertain about priorities, decision-making, and direction.
The natural response is often to hit the ‘problem’ with:
More accountability.
More oversight.
More meetings.
Stronger management.
But in many cases, the root cause is being overlooked, and as a result, these responses can exacerbate the problem, not alleviate it.
Misalignment Rarely Looks Dramatic at First
In legal environments, as in many other professional settings, misalignment tends to emerge slowly through small breakdowns that compound over time.
Conversations become increasingly reactive. Decisions need to be revisited repeatedly. People leave meetings with entirely different interpretations of what was decided. Teams duplicate work, delay action, or unintentionally move in competing directions.
Over time, operational friction starts getting interpreted as interpersonal failure.
People assume others are being difficult, disengaged, resistant, or underperforming, when the real issue is often that expectations, priorities, and communication were never aligned clearly enough in the first place.
And in today’s legal leadership environment, those gaps widen quickly.
Complexity Exposes Alignment Fractures
Today’s law firm leaders are navigating extraordinary complexity.
Hybrid work.
Generational shifts.
Succession concerns.
Evolving client expectations.
Talent retention pressures.
Economic uncertainty.
Rapid technological change.
At the same time, many leaders are still carrying full practices while trying to guide teams, manage change, and steward firm culture through increasing uncertainty.
For years, many firms were able to rely on proximity, institutional habit, and unspoken understanding to maintain cohesion.
But this new complexity exposes breakdowns in alignment.
The more uncertainty exists, the more intentional leaders must become about creating clarity.
Because communication is not the same thing as clarity.
Communication Is Not the Same Thing as Clarity
This is one of the biggest leadership misconceptions we see.
Leadership communication is not simply about transmitting information. It’s about creating shared understanding.
Those are not the same thing.
Strong leaders recognize that people need clarity around:
what matters most,
what success looks like,
how decisions are made,
how accountability operates, and
what is expected of them and others.
Without that clarity, even highly capable teams struggle to perform consistently.
When expectations remain vague or inconsistent, people naturally begin filling the gaps with assumptions.
Interpretations diverge.
Frustration builds.
Trust erodes.
And at that point, firms often respond by adding more process, more meetings, or more oversight.
But clarity doesn’t come from volume.
It comes from consistency.
Alignment.
Reinforcement.
Behaviour.
At SGI, we often remind clients that leadership behaviour shapes organizational behaviour.
The way leaders communicate, navigate tension, reinforce expectations, and respond under pressure influences how the rest of the firm operates day to day.
Leadership Alignment Shapes Organizational Alignment
When leadership teams are misaligned with one another, the organization feels it immediately.
When leaders avoid difficult conversations, communicate inconsistently, or operate from different assumptions, confusion spreads quickly through the firm.
People spend more energy interpreting dynamics or deciding who to go to for information - knowing that it will vary amongst leaders - than executing effectively.
But when leaders create alignment and reinforce expectations consistently, firms experience significantly less interpersonal drag.
Decision-making becomes clearer.
Accountability becomes easier.
Trust strengthens because people understand where they stand and what is expected of them.
And importantly, clarity creates capacity.
It allows people to focus less on navigating uncertainty internally—and more on serving clients, collaborating effectively, and moving work forward.
The Real Leadership Work
None of this eliminates tension, nor should it.
Every firm experiences tension, especially during periods of growth, transition, succession, or change. And tension - the good kind - is a necessary driver.
The strongest leadership teams are not the ones that avoid discomfort or disagreement.
They are the ones capable of navigating complexity without allowing confusion and inconsistency to destabilize the organization around them.
That requires a different kind of leadership—and one many professionals were never trained for.
It requires:
self-awareness,
communication discipline,
adaptability,
emotional regulation, and
a willingness to create clarity intentionally rather than assuming alignment exists automatically.
Because ultimately, leadership is not just about setting strategy.
It’s about creating enough clarity that people can move confidently in the same direction together.
And increasingly, that may be one of the most important competitive advantages a firm can build.
In Part 3, we’ll explore what leadership development actually requires—and why the firms investing in it intentionally are better positioned to navigate the future of law.
Comments