Why “Good People” Still Struggle in Poorly Designed Law Firm Roles

Law firms are full of good people.

Smart attorneys.
Capable paralegals.
Reliable admin staff.

Yet many firms quietly struggle with the same frustration:

“We have great people… but performance is inconsistent.”

That disconnect isn’t a mystery.

And it usually isn’t a motivation problem.

It’s a role design problem.

Talent Doesn’t Fix Structural Ambiguity

When performance dips, firms often assume:

  • the hire wasn’t right

  • expectations weren’t clear enough

  • the person needs more coaching

  • the person just “isn’t a fit”

Sometimes that’s true.

But more often, the issue is simpler — and harder to see:

The role itself is poorly designed.

Strong people can’t perform consistently inside vague, overloaded, or constantly shifting roles.

What Poorly Designed Roles Look Like in Practice

In many law firms, roles struggle because:

  • responsibilities are broad but undefined

  • priorities change week to week

  • success isn’t clearly measurable

  • decision authority is implied, not stated

  • work crosses multiple functions without ownership

  • escalation paths aren’t clear

From the outside, the role looks “flexible.”

From the inside, it feels unstable.

Why High Performers Struggle the Most

Ironically, strong performers often feel this pain more acutely.

They:

  • take on extra work without clarity

  • fill gaps because “someone has to”

  • absorb ambiguity to keep things moving

  • hesitate to push back without authority

Over time:

  • their workload expands

  • their focus fractures

  • their performance looks inconsistent

  • frustration grows

And leadership misreads the signal as a people issue.

This Is the Same Pattern That Breaks Delegation

You can learn more about this issue in our previous blog here: Delegation Isn’t the Problem — Delegation Structure Is.

Delegation fails when:

  • ownership isn’t clear

  • authority isn’t protected

  • expectations are subjective

Role performance fails for the same reason.

You can’t delegate — or perform — inside ambiguity and expect consistency.

“Wearing Multiple Hats” Has a Cost

Many firms justify role ambiguity with:

“We’re lean.”
“Everyone has to pitch in.”
“That’s just how growing firms work.”

Flexibility is normal in early stages.

But as firms grow, unstructured flexibility becomes expensive.

Because when everyone owns a little of everything:

  • no one owns outcomes

  • priorities compete

  • accountability blurs

  • performance becomes situational

The firm becomes dependent on individual heroics instead of reliable execution.

What Clear Role Design Actually Requires

Well-designed roles aren’t rigid.

They’re clear.

Clarity means:

  • defined outcomes (not just tasks)

  • explicit decision rights

  • priority hierarchy (what matters most)

  • clear handoffs between roles

  • known escalation paths

  • objective success measures

This doesn’t limit initiative.

It focuses it.

Why Firms Avoid Tightening Roles

Many firms resist clearer role design because they worry it will:

  • reduce flexibility

  • slow decision-making

  • feel “corporate”

  • create friction

In reality, the opposite happens.

When roles are clear:

  • decisions speed up

  • accountability improves

  • stress drops

  • performance stabilizes

  • leadership stops micromanaging

Ambiguity creates friction — not structure.

How COOs Fix Role Clarity Without Bureaucracy

Operational leaders don’t “box people in.”

They:

  • define outcomes instead of micromanaging tasks

  • align authority with responsibility

  • remove overlapping ownership

  • clarify priorities before conflict arises

  • ensure roles match firm strategy

This turns performance into something predictable — not personality-dependent.

When Performance Improves Without Replacing People

One of the most telling shifts firms experience after clarifying roles:

Performance improves without changing the team.

The same people suddenly:

  • execute more confidently

  • make better decisions

  • require less oversight

  • feel less burned out

Because the system finally supports them.

The Real Question Firms Should Ask

Instead of asking:

“Why isn’t this person performing?”

Firms should ask:

  • Is this role designed for success?

  • Are outcomes clear?

  • Is authority aligned with responsibility?

  • Are priorities stable?

If those answers are fuzzy, performance will be too.

If your firm has good people but inconsistent performance, the issue may not be talent — it may be role design.

I help law firms clarify roles, ownership, and authority so strong people can actually perform at their best — without burnout or constant course correction.

Next
Next

Your Law Firm Doesn’t Have an Execution Problem — It Has an Ownership Problem