If yes, it’s well worth reading this important Cat Rutter PooleyΒ piece along with theΒ John GapperΒ article she links to. My view below.

β€’Β π™‡π™€π™˜π™ -π™¨π™©π™šπ™₯ π™©π™π™§π™žπ™«π™šπ™¨ – where partner contributions (time, profit, leadership …) do not vary too much and rewards are at the top end of their markets. SeeΒ Slaughter and MayΒ and others with tight client and work-type focus and narrow geographic footprints. Clients also get great service from leading industry/sector experts that are totally client focused.
β€’Β π™‡π™€π™˜π™ -π™¨π™©π™šπ™₯ π™˜π™–π™£ 𝙨π™ͺπ™§π™«π™žπ™«π™š – as a profit allocation system – when contributions are varied but little top-end market competition for firm’s most productive partners. See the Magic Circle in 1990s and early 2000s, pre-PE boom taking firm hold.
β€’Β π™‡π™€π™˜π™ -π™¨π™©π™šπ™₯ π™˜π™–π™£π™£π™€π™© 𝙨π™ͺπ™§π™«π™žπ™«π™š – in its pure form – in a market where variable contribution and high levels of poaching pressure on firms’ most productive partners co-exist. The PE pressure-cooker.

π™Žπ™€π™‘π™ͺπ™©π™žπ™€π™£ – for most firms – a well calibrated, clear and consistent, contribution based partner profit allocation system. But without, necessarily, throwing out all aspects of tenure based reward with the pure “profit productivity” bath-water.

𝙁π™ͺπ™§π™©π™π™šπ™§ π™§π™šπ™–π™™π™žπ™£π™œΒ – John Stacy Adams’ equity theory.
𝙁π™ͺπ™§π™©π™π™šπ™§ π™©π™π™žπ™£π™ π™žπ™£π™œ –Β the difference between the partnership business model and the way partnerships distribute profits?