The recent rash of leadership transitions may have just recently caught the eye of the media, yet this conversation has dominated executive and policy committee discussions for some time. There is a dearth of up-and-coming leaders due in large part to the baby bust, or significantly smaller size of Gen X, sandwiched between the Baby Boomers and millennials. This generational phenomenon has left many firms with two choices—allow senior leaders to hold the reins longer than planned (or desired); or encourage younger leaders to take on roles for which they may not yet have the training and experience.

When it comes to leadership transitions, there are no easy answers. Unlike corporate organizations, many law firms deploy models more akin to political spheres, switching out leaders on predetermined term limits rather than based on performance. This approach is rarely in the best long-term interest of the firm (Imagine a board ousting a Fortune 500 CEO at the height of her career simply because the clock ticked to four years) and relies more on longevity and influence as the selection criteria than an objective evaluation of aptitude or potential as a leader.