explain what's the difference between the two answers and what you learned

1. Question: You are a management consultant for a 30-year old partner in a large law firm. In a meeting, your client says: "According to an article in the New York Times, 57 percent of large law firms have a mandatory retirement age for partners in the firm. Before they retire, partners are paid directly for the work that they do, and, as an owner, they are entitled to a share of the profits of the firm. Once they retire, partners do not receive either form of compensation. In light of this, I think we should eliminate mandatory retirement in order to gain a 'competitive advantage' in attracting high-quality lawyers to work for our firm. Of course, you are the expert." What do you recommend? Explain

My answer: Eliminating the mandatory retirement clause will allow the partners in the law firm to carry on with their work. And since their compensation is performance-based, they are like to perform better and earn profits for the firm. Their presence will attract other high-quality lawyers since they will be paid out of the profits of the firm and the firm's profit will be high if partners stay in the firm for a longer period of time. This 'competitive advantage' will enable new lawyers to compete and earn better. Thus if the mandatory clause is removed from the terms and conditions, law firm will be able to reap the benefits of competitive advantage.

Textbook answer: Eliminating the mandatory retirement can make sense as it allows the seasoned/experienced highly productive lawyer to continue working at the firm. Laws are always changing and lawyers need to constantly update to stay sharp and productive. If a lawyer knows they have no future because they'd be forced to retire soon (like in 5 years), they have no incentive to study and thus, they languish/turn unproductive until they retire. However, if no retirement is in sight, the lawyer may just work on professional development and thus stay productive (and earn their wage).