The Symptom
A professional services firm in London — legal, accounting, consulting, architecture, executive search, any business whose product is principally expert judgement — takes on more client work than it can comfortably deliver, hires to close the gap, and finds the gap barely narrows. Utilisation stays uneven. Senior people remain the bottleneck on almost every engagement of any complexity, regardless of how many additional junior and mid-level staff have joined. Growth in headcount and growth in delivery capacity visibly diverge.
This is a familiar enough pattern that it has its own name in the literature on professional service firms, and London’s density of exactly this kind of organisation — the country’s largest concentration of professional, scientific and technical businesses sits here — makes it an unusually common one to observe directly.
What Leaders Usually Conclude
The instinctive read is a hiring and capacity problem: not enough senior people relative to the volume of client work, solved by recruiting more of them, promoting faster, or leaning harder on the seniors already in place. In London specifically, this often gets attributed to the competitiveness of the local market for experienced talent — the assumption being that if senior hiring were easier, the bottleneck would ease with it.
There is a related, equally common conclusion: that the firm has simply grown past the point where its founders or senior partners can personally oversee quality, and that the fix is essentially cultural — better delegation, more trust placed in junior staff, senior people learning to let go.
Both diagnoses treat the problem as a shortage — of people, or of delegation. Neither is wrong exactly, but the evidence on professional service firms specifically suggests the more precise explanation sits elsewhere.
What the Evidence Suggests
David Maister’s widely cited analysis of professional service firm economics identifies utilisation, leverage and realisation as the three variables that actually determine a firm’s capacity to grow — and, critically, argues that these three variables are in tension with each other by design, not by accident of poor management. Leverage — the ratio of junior to senior staff — cannot be increased indefinitely without degrading either the quality of client work or the utilisation of the senior people meant to be supervising it, because expert judgement does not delegate the way routine execution does. A junior hire can absorb volume. A junior hire cannot absorb judgement, at least not immediately, and the training required to close that gap consumes exactly the senior capacity the hire was meant to free up.
This reframes the symptom considerably. The bottleneck is not a hiring shortfall that better recruiting would solve. It is closer to a structural ceiling built into what professional services actually are: a business model where the thing being sold — expert judgement — is also the scarcest resource inside the firm, and where every unit of growth in junior capacity generates a proportional, not diminishing, demand on senior oversight.
Laura Empson, Professor in the Management of Professional Service Firms at Bayes Business School in London, has spent close to three decades researching exactly this governance dynamic. Her analysis of leadership and power inside partner-led firms describes decision-making authority that sits not with a management layer optimising for scale in the abstract, but with the senior practitioners themselves — the same people whose personal capacity is the constraint being discussed. That arrangement introduces a structural reluctance to make the kind of investment — in systems, in delegated authority, in accepting short-term quality risk to build longer-term capacity — that would actually relieve the bottleneck, because the people deciding whether to make that investment are disproportionately the ones who would absorb its short-term cost.
Competing Explanations
Not every account of this symptom agrees on where the real lever sits, and it is worth holding the disagreement openly rather than resolving it artificially.
One position, closer to Maister’s original framing, treats the leverage ceiling as close to a fixed structural feature of professional services — something to be managed and worked around rather than solved, because the tension between leverage and quality is inherent to judgement-based work rather than a fixable inefficiency.
A second position, more common in governance-focused research on partner-led firms, locates the real constraint not in the economics of leverage itself but in the decision-making structure sitting on top of it — arguing that firms with governance models genuinely separated from day-to-day practitioner incentives can push the leverage ceiling further than partnership-governed firms typically do, because the people deciding how much to invest in capacity are not the same people whose personal workload that investment would temporarily increase.
The disagreement matters in practice, because it points toward different places to look. If the ceiling is structural, the more useful question is how a firm manages growth within it. If the ceiling is substantially a governance artefact, the more useful question is why growth decisions are being made by the people least incentivised to absorb their short-term cost. The evidence available does not settle this cleanly for every firm; it depends heavily on how concentrated decision-making authority actually is inside the specific organisation in question, and firms rarely sit neatly at either extreme — most combine a genuine structural ceiling with a governance layer that makes the ceiling somewhat lower than it needs to be.
Where this shows up
This perspective is read through the London setting. The London market page brings together the related Perspectives, and the Markets page places London alongside the other business hubs.
Questions worth considering
- Is the constraint genuinely how much senior capacity exists, or how much of it is being consumed by training and oversight that could, in principle, be structured differently?
- Who is actually deciding how fast the firm grows — is it the people best placed to judge the market opportunity, or the people who will personally absorb the short-term cost of growing faster?
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.