Saying things without breaking the relationship: a law firm builds a shared language for feedback
A mid-sized, fast-growing business law firm, built on a promise of human excellence. An internal incident, sparked by curt written exchanges on a sensitive subject, showed that the way people spoke to each other had not kept pace with the expansion.
At a glance
Business law firm · The whole firm, around thirty people · Four mixed groups, FR and NL
The challenge: A growing firm promises human excellence. Written exchanges that were too curt showed that the way people spoke to each other had not kept up.
Our approach: The whole firm trained in feedback, from partners to support staff, in French and Dutch.
Result: An average of 4.34/5, and 24 of 25 respondents rate overall quality 4 or 5. Everyone leaves with a prepared conversation and a partner.
The firm promised a human touch, its emails said the opposite
The firm lacked neither talent nor goodwill. Lunches are shared, social distance is small. But growth had been rapid, and the way people told each other things had stayed home-made. When a disagreement arises, it too often goes out by email, late, without nuance. And language adds another layer of misunderstanding.
A recent incident made this visible. The management acknowledged it publicly and launched a set of actions. The training is one of them. With a clear instruction: target no one, equip everyone.
What the intake revealed:
- Sensitive subjects handled by email, where a curt tone ends up in black and white.
- Very uneven practices: some of the partners are open to feedback, two or three remain sceptical.
- No shared framework or vocabulary to name a tension.
- A tendency to go back over the past, which puts the other person on the defensive.
- Upward feedback (from associate to partner) that barely existed.
- Two language communities at risk of receiving two different messages.
So the point was not to learn one more technique. It was to make the firm’s promise of humanity true in every conversation, including the difficult ones.
“Giving and receiving feedback”: one language for everyone, in both languages
Through a sector training body, Lead designed a programme that is strictly identical in French and in Dutch: same flow, same models, same cases, same questionnaire. The groups are mixed, with partners, associates, support staff and paralegals together. The common thread: kind to the person, demanding on the practice. More than half of the time is spent on practice.
Before: setting the frame and preparing
- An in-depth intake with HR: context, expectations, sensitivities, internal escalation procedure.
- Small groups, to protect psychological safety and interactivity.
- A preparation questionnaire sent a week in advance, for personal use, centred on one question: which conversation am I putting off?
Half-day 1: understanding and giving
Intention: understand why it is difficult, then acquire a simple method.
- Rules of engagement set from the start: absolute confidentiality, no individual feedback to HR or management.
- The three conversations within any difficult discussion: facts, emotions, identity.
- Psychological safety as a precondition, and the distinction between doing and being.
- Preparing in six points, then structuring in four steps: situation, behaviour, impact, feed forward.
- A 45-minute workshop in trios: each person writes and plays the script of a real conversation.
In between: trying it out
One instruction: hold your conversation, or at least send a first signal, and come back with what happened. The second half-day starts from this material, not from theory.
Half-day 2: receiving and holding steady
Intention: receive without becoming defensive, and sustain the conversation over time.
- The four levels of listening and the six classic forms of resistance, including the most insidious: false agreement.
- Holding course under pressure: the broken record, and naming the choice when the exchange goes off track.
- Reacting in the moment with the five Ds, and regulating emotions before, during and after.
- A four-level gradation, with a step before escalation: the confidential adviser appointed by the firm.
- Concrete anchoring: roadmap, 30, 60 and 90-day plan, cross-department pair, written commitment.
The signature method: feedback that goes up
The most eagerly awaited case was not the partner setting someone straight. It was the reverse: an associate, or a member of the support staff, receives a sharp email from their partner late in the evening, for the third time. The next morning, at the coffee machine, what do they say? What do they leave unsaid?
Worked through with the situation, behaviour, impact, feed forward structure, this case opens the channel that had not been working. It sometimes unsettles a few partners. That is precisely its purpose.
Three safety rules, non-negotiable
Nothing said in the room leaves it. No one plays the role of a colleague who is present, and everyone practises from their real position. Sensitive situations are played opposite the trainer, never re-enacted between peers. The triggering incident is never named: everyone makes the connection, no one says it out loud.
Everyone leaves with a conversation ready, and someone to help them hold it
- A written script (situation, behaviour, impact, feed forward) for a real conversation to be held.
- A commitment sheet: with whom, on what subject, by when, which standard I am protecting.
- An individual roadmap (start, stop, continue, develop) and a 30, 60 and 90-day plan.
- A cross-department pair, formed in the room, with check-in points.
- A participant handbook identical in French and in Dutch, with checklists and gradation markers.
- A summary report for management: group-level evaluation results, conclusions and options for follow-up.
A shared language, from trainee to managing partner
All four groups completed the programme, in both languages, at every level of the firm. The evaluations gathered by the training body are clear: an average of 4.34 out of 5 across all criteria, 24 of 25 respondents giving 4 or 5 for overall quality, and not a single “poor” rating. The mixed groups achieved the best scores.
The weakest point is also the most honest one: application in practice (3.96 out of 5). Participants ask for more concrete advice, more practice time on their own situations, and more room for recognition. That is now where the return will be made.
The programme aims to deliver:
- a shared vocabulary to name a tension, whatever the rank and the language;
- upward feedback that becomes possible, and a confidential adviser used before escalation;
- fewer sensitive subjects handled by email;
- partners who lead by example, since their presence in the room gave the programme its weight.
To anchor these gains, Lead proposed a 60-day review per language group, a module on recognition and everyday feed forward, and a second wave for those who were absent and for new joiners.
Put more emphasis on the fact that we give positive feedback, and not always on the negative points.
Participant, business law firmA demanding framework, designed for the world of lawyers
- An insider’s understanding of how a law firm works: partnership, egos, the rhythm of cases, a professional identity tied to competence.
- Strict consistency between the two languages, with trainers aligned on the same models, cases and rules.
- Psychological safety built before any technique, and protected until the very last minute.
- Concrete anchoring after the room: written commitment, pair, 30, 60 and 90-day plan, feedback on experience.
In your firm, which conversations still go out by email because they were never held?
If you want your partners, associates and support teams to share the same way of telling each other things, we can design a programme based on your real situations. Let’s talk.
