Skip to main content
About HEC About HEC
Summer School Summer School
Faculty & Research Faculty & Research
Master’s programs Master’s programs
Bachelor Programs Bachelor Programs
MBA Programs MBA Programs
PhD Program PhD Program
Executive Education Executive Education
HEC Online HEC Online
About HEC
Overview Overview
Who
We Are
Who
We Are
Egalité des chances Egalité des chances
HEC Talents HEC Talents
International International
Sustainability Sustainability
Diversity
& Inclusion
Diversity
& Inclusion
The HEC
Foundation
The HEC
Foundation
Campus life Campus life
Activity Reports Activity Reports
Summer School
Youth Programs Youth Programs
Summer programs Summer programs
Online Programs Online Programs
Faculty & Research
Overview Overview
Faculty Directory Faculty Directory
Departments Departments
Centers Centers
Chairs Chairs
Grants Grants
Knowledge@HEC Knowledge@HEC
Master’s programs
Master in
Management
Master in
Management
Master's
Programs
Master's
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Summer
Programs
Summer
Programs
Exchange
students
Exchange
students
Student
Life
Student
Life
Our
Difference
Our
Difference
Bachelor Programs
Overview Overview
Course content Course content
Admissions Admissions
Fees and Financing Fees and Financing
MBA Programs
MBA MBA
Executive MBA Executive MBA
TRIUM EMBA TRIUM EMBA
PhD Program
Overview Overview
HEC Difference HEC Difference
Program details Program details
Research areas Research areas
HEC Community HEC Community
Placement Placement
Job Market Job Market
Admissions Admissions
Financing Financing
FAQ FAQ
Executive Education
Home Home
About us About us
Management topics Management topics
Open Programs Open Programs
Custom Programs Custom Programs
Events/News Events/News
Contacts Contacts
HEC Online
Overview Overview
Executive programs Executive programs
MOOCs MOOCs
Summer Programs Summer Programs
Youth programs Youth programs
Article

Consultants, Lawyers, Accountants… What Drives Team Collaboration

Strategy
Published on:

It’s well known that people are a company’s greatest asset. But how does interpersonal collaboration make a business successful? And what drives these collaborations? Instead of just valuing individuals, companies must recognize the connections between them, say John Mawdsley and Olivier Chatain of HEC Paris and Philipp Meyer-Doyle of INSEAD. They show how forming work teams depends on client relationships, client status, and resource availability.

colleagues shaking hands - cover

As any professional sports manager knows, new teams can be wildly successful or surprisingly disappointing. When it goes well, collaboration can create something much greater than the sum of its parts. The question is, how do you decide whether to stick with a winning lineup or take a risk on an entirely new configuration of players?

In the context of professional service firms like law, accounting, and consultancy, collaboration is continuous and crucial. These knowledge-intensive businesses serve a roster of clients and involve forming temporary project teams in response to client needs. These teams then disband when the work is complete.

Professional service firms typically have a partner and associate structure rather than classic top-down management. Partners act autonomously and share ownership of the firm, which means they choose with whom to collaborate when building a team. They may also personally hold the firm’s relationship with a client. This means their teams’ success or failure in earning business from clients will affect not only the financial bottom line but also their personal standing within the firm.

It’s not always better to stick with what you know

'If it ain't broke,' as the saying goes, 'don't fix it.' Putting people together who have previously formed successful teams is a low-risk strategy since their compatibility is proven. But in sticking with these tried and trusted teams, firms pass up the chance to try a new combination which could offer even greater value.

It also restricts the social capital within the firm – the richness of connections and collaborations within it. It's great to work with the same people repeatedly, but you see diminishing returns as time passes.

Heidi Gardner’s work on collaboration within law firms shows that by collaborating with more people, individuals do better because they get more relationships and more referrals. Building a reputation through connections in this way means they can appropriate more value for themselves and progress in their careers.

So, there is a trade-off between the proven, short-term benefits of a team that has worked together before and the potentially greater success (long-term and short-term) that comes with new combinations of people.
How do partners choose their teams?

There is plenty of literature on how the makeup of temporary project teams affects business outcomes but less research on how teams are put together in the first place. What makes partners choose whether to assemble a new team or stick with an established grouping?

Our research focuses on how relationships, clients, and resource availability drive team-forming decisions. We identify three groups of factors:
•    Relationship: Questions around who holds the relationship with the client – the firm or the individual.
•    Client status: Factors like how important the client is to the firm and how long-standing the relationship has the potential to be.
•    Resource constraints: Including individual and firm-level considerations, such as which people are available to join a given project team.

When do firms embrace risk and try out new team member combinations?

New collaborations are more likely to happen if the client relationship is held primarily by the firm rather than by an individual. In these situations, the client relationship is based on the firm's reputation or the client's experience with the firm rather than with a specific partner.

There are a few possible reasons for this trend. The firm may be willing to try new things if no individual reputations are especially at risk. If something goes wrong, the client might prefer not to work with these people again, but their loyalty to the firm is not necessarily affected. Another reason may be that many people within the firm have a similar level of client knowledge, so more combinations of suitable teammates are possible.

Another scenario in which new teams might be tried out is when clients have a low probability of retention. If the client is known to use multiple firms already, for example, there is less to lose if the new team doesn't work out, as the firm may lose its business anyway. If the team is successful, value has been created in the form of new, productive connections that can be used again in the future.

What drives firms to use lower-risk, established teams?

When one person primarily holds a firm’s client relationship, that person will be cautious about risk and is more likely to opt for a team they know to have been successful in the past.

High-status clients are also more likely to be serviced by tried and trusted team combinations. Again, the driver is avoiding risk. Although it might seem intuitive to put together a new 'all-star' team from across the business to handle a big and prestigious project, this can fail if the people don't get along or haven't got previously established ways of working together. It’s safer to give the responsibility to well-established, well-functioning teams.

Resource constraints drive new combinations – but only on an individual level

Of course, people need to be available to work on the team. New teams can form when the usual members are unavailable to work together again. If someone is busy with other responsibilities, there is no option but to work with someone new.

Yet, when firms are resource-constrained rather than just specific team members, the opposite happens. They tend to default to known, low-risk team compositions as the most efficient means of servicing clients.
 

Applications

This research helps firms and professionals understand how to leverage existing collaborative relationships and decide whether and when to develop new ones. When choosing collaborations, they should consider client-related factors, rather than just who is easier to work with or more skilled. The attributes of the client may well influence the level of risk. The research also highlights the effects of resource constraints at both firm and individual levels.

Methodology

We tested our hypotheses in the context of UK legal services between 2002 and 2005, with a focus on M&A (Mergers & Acquisitions) legal services. We obtained data from Mergermarket, a database of M&A deals, and The Lawyer, a publication including data on the top 100 UK corporate law firms and other legal industry data sources.
Based on an interview with John Mawdsley on his paper “Client-Related Factors and Collaboration Between Human Assets,” co-written with Philipp Meyer-Doyle of INSEAD, and Olivier Chatain of HEC Paris, published in Organization Science in 2022.

Related content on Strategy