In her post, Why the Pursuit of Consistency Makes You Irrelevant, Lisa Earle McLeod suggests that clinging to consistency is an attempt to justify stagnation. Many law firms are feeling (and have been feeling for a while) the push to evolve. The legal field itself and the larger business and political workings around it are constantly changing.
McLeod wisely suggests maintaining a “constancy of purpose,” which she elaborates on:
As humans, we all need some level of consistency in our lives. The key is to understand the difference between consistency of conditions and constancy of purpose. When constancy of purpose is your North Star, you can flex and change your conditions. In the absence of a purpose, people will cling to consistency of conditions.
In the practice of law there’s a level of creativity demanded when you apply something relatively fixed (a law) to a situation full of nuance, change, and variables. However, when it comes to running a firm, is the same creativity, the same evolving conditions paired with a laser sharp purpose, utilized?
Do you agree with McLeod? Are there any situations where this may not apply?
Read the full article here.
Original photo here.