Intrinsic .v.extrinsic motivation
In his recent book "Drive", Daniel Pink points out that the central weakness in carrot and stick motivation has been known for decades. It's just that we weren't listening.
Pink argues that Motivation 1.0 was all around survival - getting food/shelter etc. Motivation 2.0 was formed around the industrial age - piecework, where we offer to pay people twice as much if they produce twice as much. Most firms still advocate Motivation 2.0, although the discussion around what is measured and how it is rewarded should be more of a moot point than it is.
The big problem is that it doesn't motivate. Even if lawyers were convinced that additional effort would lead to improved reward (which they aren't), money is - in the words of Herzberg - largely a "hygiene factor". Lawyers need enough for comparison purposes - hence the emphasis on PEP - but it hits very few of their basic drivers.
What motivates lawyers, really? Most lawyers would, in an ideal world, like to be be left alone to do high-quality work for appreciative clients, who would pay full rates for all work - preferably without needing to be invoiced. The big motivator is the chance to be left alone to do what they signed up to do - law. If your business plan/firm strategy increases the chance of this happening, partners will be enthusiastic about it. Well, as enthusiastic as partners become. This doesn't mean that they will do the unpleasant things that are required to bring this nirvana into being, but it does increase the chances.
Because Pink's thesis is that Motivation 3.0 is all around intrinsic motivation. It's about unlocking the inherent motivation in people that the imposition of output-measuring and goal-orientation has removed. It's about re-framing work as play: the sort of intellectual challenge which the lawyer would engage in even if he or she wasn't being paid for it.
It's a tall order, but it's a future that's rosier than the accountants' alternative.