We have generally come to accept that fundamental changes occur in nature, even if certain among them – such as the upcoming reversal of the magnetic north and south pole, a phenomenon which is apparently long overdue – can be somewhat unnerving. In our working lives, we must now likewise accept change as the norm. Are we ready to accept change at work and are barristers chambers, with their unique structure, lagging far behind other professional services organisations in accepting such change?

For many of us, whether at a barrister's chambers or even a law firm, the process of cultural change may be very disconcerting. The evolution of traditional, dusty, professional practices into thriving, modern legal businesses – a story well documented in these pages over the years – feels as unnerving and extreme as the possible switching of the poles.

However, compelling the justification, we will all harbour emotions ranging from uncertainty to suspicion or even fear. Against this natural and human inertia, it is hard to win over the hearts and minds of every single individual within the organisation. The challenge for management is not only to gain acceptance of the cultural change, but, more importantly, to see it become part of every individual's daily behaviour. In solicitors' firms, like any professional services organisation founded as partnerships or other corporate entities, this is hard enough. How much harder it must then be for the Bar, where each practitioner is required to be in sole practice.

Traditionalists argue that the sole practitioner structure imposed on barristers, particularly those in sets that offer a broad range of services, makes the management of a barrister's chambers a special case. Even more so, traditionalists would say, for sets like my own that are developing a business spanning both the civil and the criminal bar. But this view places too much emphasis on corporate structure and too little on culture. Isn't it rather an argument for those fearful of change to hide behind?

Solicitors, barristers and even investment bankers share more in common culturally than we first might think. Take the old mantra of 'managing the Bar is like herding cats', implying that the bar exists culturally as individuals rather than teams. The same is equally true for rainmaking solicitors and investment bankers. A good banker is notoriously protective of his or her client base, even with colleagues and the stories of locking one's desk drawer at night (to prevent colleagues from poaching clients/ideas) are, from my own experience, true. It is probably the practice of 'eat what you kill' that encourages this behaviour and therein lies the similarity in culture between the professional services disciplines.

In practice, of course, solicitors and bankers recognise and exploit the benefits of teamworking, including the cross-selling of services, within their respective organisations. The reason is that all such professionals recognise the personal benefits of collaborative effort, typically through the profit pool. But why should this approach not apply to the Bar as well? While there is no profit pool, the fact remains that in modern chambers, and particularly the larger chambers, many barristers share the same pool of law firm clients. It is not untypical to find something approaching the 80-20 rule – 80% of the fee base derives from the top 20% of the overall client base. The benefits of working in teams, even if collegiate in style, is compelling. Evidence of this in practice is seen in the way chambers now seek to provide clients with a depth and breadth of expertise in each of their practice groups or teams – it is quite clearly becoming more of a "corporate" rather than individualistic approach.

If chambers are adopting a more corporate approach, despite their lack of any formal legal structure, why is it that introducing cultural change is still a hard challenge for reforming management? The answer is that, to effect and sustain cultural change, an organisation needs strong leadership. Whereas the solicitors' firms can use their shared profit pool to remunerate a managing partner for managing rather than fee earning, no such option is available to chambers. It is far harder for a head of chambers to combine the leadership role alongside a busy practice.

The Bar, far from being slow to change, recognised this inherent conflict years ago and set about evolving the traditional senior clerk's role into that of professional business manager. In some cases, chambers have recruited professionals with business skills gained outside the law and have strengthened considerably the leadership role, similar to the larger solicitors' firms.

These new management teams now face different challenges depending on the type of change they are looking to introduce. 'Corporate' change – a merger, for example – can be effected at the Bar relatively easily, as it does not necessarily require a change in individual behaviour per se throughout the organisation. More challenging is the change that requires everyone in the organisation to behave differently. Cultural change, which stems from a change in every individual's mind set, cannot be brought about by diktats or memos, let alone paintball weekends. It is more complex to introduce and to sustain. For the bar, trying to modernise its practices, this is the real challenge facing its leaders and one that should not be underestimated in its complexity.

For genuine cultural change, a number of conditions need to be addressed and satisfied. First, each individual must accept why the change is necessary, or at least be prepared to give it a try. This will test the leadership's ability to communicate at all levels and the approach is no different whether applied to solicitors' partnerships or to chambers. Pointing to management theories or other esoteric justifications will not do. Intelligent leaders will point to real life examples to demonstrate why change is necessary and how it will work all the way down through the organisation. Internal communications programmes all help to put across the leadership's vision, particularly where it is possible to draw attention to successes being achieved. At this stage, it is important to ensure that all interest groups are included in the dissemination process and not just the senior 'heavy-hitters'.

Second, reinforcement systems, for example reward and recognition structures, must be put in place early on and must be consistent with reinforcing this new culture. Consider the partner in a law firm who is told to spend more time building relationships but is only rewarded on the level of billing each year – the priority given to marketing will soon diminish. Performance and appraisal systems may need a major overhaul to give appropriate weight to non-fee earning work.

While financial reward structures are not possible at the Bar, paradoxically, the motivation for marketing by barristers is higher, since their efforts typically benefit the barrister personally.

Third, individuals must have or learn the skills necessary to carry out the new system effectively and with confidence. In some cases this may require training, though the effectiveness of 'sheep dip' training (total immersion with no follow up) should be viewed with caution. It may be better to consider some form of mentoring programme whereby those individuals who do have the skills mentor colleagues over a period of time, helping to transfer skills effectively and to build confidence. In a chambers, it is traditionally the pupillage relationship that provided an informal link. A more formal mentoring programme after pupillage may facilitate skill transfer and have the added benefit of building trusted links within the organisation, drawing individuals into teams.

Fourth, and fundamental to success, is to identify the key influencers in the organisation at each level and ensure that they act as role models for the new patterns of behaviour. In order to effect a cultural change, it must be more than the leaders and senior management who are seen to be putting it into practice consistently.

So, managing change at the Bar is not so different from managing change at any professional services organisation. While the sole practitioner structure may make it harder than for solicitors' firms, it is by no means impossible. What is needed is strong leadership. The question we should be asking is not 'is it possible?', but instead, like the changing magnetic poles, 'is it long overdue?'

Robert Graham-Campbell is the chief executive of Seven Bedford Row chambers.