Law Practice
The Tiger Woods Effect: Law Firm Superstars May Discourage Other Lawyers
Posted Jan 10, 2008 7:25 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Law firms that want to hire a few superstars to promote competition should consider the Tiger Woods effect, a researcher says. The superstars could actually spur other lawyers to reduce their efforts.
Jennifer Brown of the University of California at Berkeley comes to this conclusion in a study (PDF) of higher-skilled golfers playing against Tiger Woods. The golfers tend to do worse when playing against Woods, even more so when he is on winning streak. Yet this superstar effect disappears when Woods is in a slump.
Brown suggests that competition between equals can boost efforts because the effort appears winnable. But when one of the competitors is a superstar, the probability of winning is low so others may reduce their efforts.
She says law firms and other businesses may want to consider her findings.
“Associates in law and medical firms compete to become partners,” she writes. “Their competition is effectively a tournament, since firms take on more associates than there are available partner positions. If the presence of a superstar undermines the efforts of other associates, and the additional gains from the star do not offset the losses from the others, then a firm might be better off hiring a cohort of similarly talented associates.”
A hat tip to Portfolio.com, which wrote about the findings, and Legal Blog Watch, which noted the Portfolio blurb.

Comments
JR
Jan 11, 2008 7:46 AM CST
Give me a break. Law practice as life amounts to more than a zero sum game. A superstar leads by example, mentors and brings in more business than he can handle. Plus, the firm’s reputation rubs off on everyone.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Horace
Jan 11, 2008 8:35 AM CST
JR is right. To decline to hire a superstar and instead to hire a cohort of lesser lights is to concede the firm is striving for mediocrity. Not a good message for the firm or its clients. Of course, at many firms, senior management may be reluctant to bring in a superstar in a practice area competitive with the senior managers in order not to be ourshone and/or to jeopardize their continued dominance in firm management.
unmustachioed
Jan 11, 2008 10:33 AM CST
So screen off the superstars from the others. This article is forgetting the key thing here: superstars win. It’s who wins in court and against the other party that counts, isn’t it? Is this article trying to say that law firms shouldn’t hire superstars so as not to discourage the other attorneys? What about the clients for pete’s sake? This is silly. It’s about the same argument as handing out awards to all the players on the peewee soccer team so no one feels bad. Law is about representing clients, not about making people feel good about themselves.
joe
Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM CST
This is a ridiculous article, which keeps in line with many others from the ABA. This is like arguing that all students should get “S’s” (for satisfactory, as opposed to A’s, B’s, C’s, etc.
NP
Jan 11, 2008 11:27 AM CST
Puh-leeze! I’m in the “tournament to make partner” and I want to be a partner in a firm filled with “superstar winners” not “top of the middle of the pack.” Hopefully, when I do make partner, I’ll want to bring in superstar associates to keep building the firm’s practice and will keep my ego in check.
R
Jan 11, 2008 12:58 PM CST
I have a sneaking suspicion that the author of that study is not considered one of Berkeley’s superstars - and is up for tenure soon!
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.