The different types of rainmakers
My thoughts on an article from the Harvard Business Review about the different types of revenue generators at law firms
This morning I came across a really interesting article from the Harvard Business Review, called What Today’s Rainmakers Do Differently. The article was noteworthy because it focuses on professional services sales (e.g. law firm sales) as opposed to general sales. So I decided to take the opportunity to highlight five key takeaways from the article (for free subscribers) and some deeper thoughts about the Activator type (for premium subscribers).
1. There are five general types of rainmakers
Experts, confidants, debaters, realists, and activators. The article explains what each of these types are good at, how they tend to operate, and highlights where they typically get work from. Reading through the descriptions, it struck me that most lawyers probably see themselves as the “expert” type. Interestingly, the expert type also tends to hoard client relationships because to them, everything is zero sum. Sound familiar?
2. Confidants generate business from people they know through personal or professional networks
This to me is exactly why leadership at many firms remains an “old boys club” despite all of the focus on DEI. That’s why you see more diversity at the junior levels of a firm instead. The bottleneck isn’t *exactly* the firm itself, it’s the power structure behind social networks that keep out women, people of color, etc.
3. Debaters do well in B2B sales generally, but not in professional services
The authors use the term “debaters” which to me is very similar to the “challenger” type that those of us in software sales were trained to emulate. Challengers assertively recommend products to buyers, while “challenging” the buyer’s existing beliefs. Which is supposed to earn the seller a lot of credibility and makes them more effective. Apparently that doesn’t work in professional services sales, because the seller is the product.
4. Realists are transparent and even pessimistic about what they can deliver
The article points out that this is a good approach to meeting client expectations, but leaves something to be desired. Personally I think realists thrive in environments where there’s excess demand or where overselling is common. I mean, I buy that realists aren’t the best sales performers, but on the other hand, they also tend to do well in the long term, because they rarely disappoint buyers. In fact, some buyers are persuaded more by a seller that is very conservative about what they can deliver.
5. Activators are the most effective type of rainmaker
They are super-connectors, and use digital channels (like LinkedIn) to connect directly with key decisionmakers at the buyers’ organization. Which works incredibly well. From the article:
Katie Vickery, a partner at the UK law firm Osborne Clarke, has a commitment to her business-development routine that has paid off handsomely. She told us that she spends half of every workday on business development. She posts on LinkedIn, likes or comments on others’ posts, and keeps track of role changes and personal events. She reads as much as possible, scanning the news in search of valuable updates that she can send to clients. She also creates thought leadership videos: When inspiration strikes, she goes into Osborne Clarke’s in-house studio, records a video in about 20 minutes, and posts it on LinkedIn. Her process nets her roughly one new business opportunity every two to three days.
This type of client development is antifragile because it doesn’t depend on say, one single-threaded relationship with some high level buyer. Instead, it enables the activator fully leverage their firms’ practice areas, identify new areas of business, and create new, unexpected sources of value. As you can see from the example above, it even drives potential clients to reach out directly!
Activators can harness the full power of the entire firm vs. their personal expertise
Part of why I believe Activators can be so valuable is that they’re not just selling what they can offer—they are selling what the entire firm can offer. For example, if you’re a litigator, and you have a relationship with a Chief Legal Officer, maybe you can only gain value when that CLO has a litigation matter. As an activator though, you can cross-sell lots of different services, including those you have no personal expertise in. You are also incentivized to be less transactional in your dealings. As the article points out:
Instead, Activators are forward-looking. They realize that even if some of this outreach doesn’t translate into billable work in the short term, it lays the groundwork for engagements down the road.
Building a robust network means connecting with people who can’t help you today
Being less transactional can be incredibly powerful. It builds goodwill for the long term. For example, if you only have a narrow set of professional relationships in your niche industry, it might be valuable today—but who knows what will happen when market conditions change. Having a large, rich, diverse network, on the other hand, means you can pivot on a dime. It could be to a new practice area, a new industry, or even to a completely different career. Networks are robust to change, which is why they are a huge asset on your personal balance sheet.
However, that kind of network can’t be built overnight. It requires you to broaden your activity to lots of different people. Maybe you *shouldn’t* only focus on the Chief Legal Officer. Maybe you should build a better relationship with that junior associate at your own firm, because they’re going to someday become the CLO at some other company. In the Activator’s world, everyone can be a potential VIP contact.
I remember back during the pandemic, I used to host open Zoom meetups for all of my LinkedIn connections. I wasn’t sure exactly how it would help me, career-wise, since many of the attendees were law students, junior associates (who I couldn’t sell to), or lawyers in between jobs. I didn’t realize it then, but many of those people ended up in General Counsel or AGC roles shortly after, and became some of my most important contacts. Had I been laser focused on only those who I perceived to be “useful” I would have missed out on a huge opportunity to grow my network.
Building a team of activators requires alignment of financial incentives
In the article they mention that to build a “team of activators” for your firm, you’ve got to invest in (1) training & coaching, (2) hiring & partner selection, (3) incentives & rewards, and (4) technology. I agree that all of these things are important, but personally I believe (3) incentives & rewards are by far the most important factor.
Back when I was selling tech for a startup, I once cross-sold an account for another sales rep. Instead of being generously rewarded for that cross-sale, I was given just a pat on the back. “You want something more?” my manager said, when I asked for a reward. “You don’t get a bonus for doing your job.”
You better believe that was the last time I ever did anything like that. Moving forward I hoarded all of my relationships.
If you truly want to create a team of activators, you have align everyone’s economic incentive. This is where I thought the article fell short. The suggestions of incentives they provided were essentially pats on the back. From the article:
Firms must reinforce the Activator behavior they wish to see replicated throughout the organization. Baker McKenzie’s requirement that partners identify collaborations with colleagues as part of their compensation memos is one way to incentivize collaboration. McDermott Will & Emery encourages healthy competition among its partners by asking them to log at least two business-development activities a week. Qualifying activities are substantive in nature, such as attending a pitch meeting, networking with contacts at an event, and nonbillable sharing of insights or trends. Firm leaders recognize partners who demonstrate a steady commitment to developing business, and clients acknowledge the positive impact on their working relationships and support to their businesses.
Engaging in activator behavior *must* have a clear economic reward. It can’t be an obligation that the firm requires you to do. I’ve been part of many sales teams where we were required to engage in outbound sales activity, like the one described above. None of them worked. It’s because we all just pretended to do them to get our bosses off our backs. And then because they didn’t work, we claimed they were ineffective and just stopped doing them.
If you’re a firm leader and you’re serious about building a team of activators, incentivize your team players. For example, if one partner introduces a client to another partner, and it leads to revenue, you gotta make sure the first partner gets directly compensated for it. I’m not sure if the right method is fee splitting, a bonus structure, or what. But you need to do more than just give the partner a shout out or pat on the back. That won’t cut it.
—
All in all though, I thought the article was pretty good. It provided a clear framework for thinking about rainmaking at a law firm. If you have any questions or comments feel free to let me know!
Related:
How to use LinkedIn for Business Development