Why Leadership Confidence Is Often Incomplete

Firm leaders are often reasonably confident that their administrative support structure is working well, or at least adequately. That confidence usually comes from day-to-day experience, trusted managers, and operating models that have been in place for years.

In our experience, what’s less visible is how that stability is being achieved. A manager who “keeps things running” may be compensating for structural gaps through personal effort rather than a repeatable, scalable system. A team that appears quiet may actually be absorbing more demand than leadership realizes. Without objective data, confidence can feel well-founded while still leaving meaningful operational risk undiscovered.

The Gap Between Job Descriptions and Daily Reality

Most firms assume responsibilities are clearly defined. On paper, they usually are. In practice, roles drift.

Over time, administrative staff pick up extra tasks, trade duties, or cover for one another informally. The result is a growing disconnect between job descriptions and daily reality. When asked what they actually do, even strong performers often struggle to describe their role cleanly.

That lack of clarity becomes a real problem when someone leaves, goes on extended leave, or when coverage is suddenly needed. What felt manageable under normal conditions quickly becomes exposed.

Where Blind Spots Tend to Hide

Operational blind spots tend to live in places that are not tracked or reported. Common examples include shared inboxes with no clear ownership, informal coverage when someone is out, attorneys stepping in to handle support tasks themselves, workarounds created to move things along faster, and support work that is never documented.

None of this shows up in workflow reports. Yet these activities often explain why staff feel stretched, why attorneys are frustrated, and why costs do not align with expectations.

Why Traditional Tools Do Not Solve This

Firms often turn to workflow platforms or ticketing systems to gain visibility. Those tools can help, but only after consistent adoption and months of clean data. Even then, they capture only what is formally logged.

Informal work, role overlap, and exception handling remain invisible. By the time usable insights emerge, inefficiencies are often baked into the operation, and the firm has already spent significant time and money waiting for answers.

What Firms Gain by Starting with Visibility

When firms begin with a clear view of who is doing what, everything else becomes easier. Role overlap becomes visible. Tasks that should be automated or outsourced stand out. Workloads can be realigned to match actual demand. Accountability improves without micromanagement. Staff gain clearer expectations and more sustainable workloads.

Visibility is not about control. It is about informed decision-making.

Why Most Firms Misdiagnose the Problem

Without data, firms default to assumptions. Staff must be underperforming. Headcount must be too high. Technology must be the solution.

Those assumptions drive quick fixes that rarely stick. In our experience, the better approach is to start with a comprehensive, role-specific analysis of the current workload. That is where durable improvement begins.

Case Study: When Visibility Changed the Conversation

A Boston-based firm, Burns & Levinson LLP, engaged Mattern when leadership wanted to understand whether its front and back office services should remain outsourced or be brought in-house. What leadership lacked was a clear picture of how work was actually being performed across offices and roles.

Mattern conducted a detailed review of administrative responsibilities, service coverage, and workload distribution, including how informal support and exception handling were being managed. The analysis revealed where responsibilities had drifted, where services were overlapping, and where expectations were not aligned with staffing models.

With that visibility, the firm was able to make informed decisions rather than reactive ones. Leadership evaluated both in-house and outsourced models with clear staffing requirements, service levels, and cost implications. Ultimately, the firm elected to remain outsourced, but with a fundamentally restructured model that included clearer accountability, defined service levels, improved reporting, and a right-sized MFD fleet.

The result was improved service consistency, better support for satellite offices, and a contract structure that aligned performance with firm expectations. Just as important, leadership finally had confidence that was backed by data, not assumptions. That’s Mattern engagement.

The Mattern Perspective

You cannot improve what you cannot see. The firms that operate most effectively invest in visibility first, before redesigning roles, renegotiating contracts, or implementing new tools.

At Mattern, we help law firms gain the clarity they need to make smart, strategic operational decisions. If your firm is trying to fix efficiency without fully understanding the work behind it, we can help you start in the right place. Contact info@matternassoc.com.