????“我剛成為合伙人”這句話聽起來確實如同天籟之音，也是很多剛剛進入律師事務所和投資銀行的雇員們渴望有一天能夠說出口的一句話。

????但如今，成為合伙人的意義已經今非昔比。實際上，這一點也已經不是什么新鮮事了。但是，很多剛入行的雇員仍然渴望能夠實現這一目標。

????為什么？原因很多，其中大多涉及傳統和薪酬。不過，盡管成為合伙人并不是毫無意義，初入職場的人還是應當考量一下，它是否是一個可靠的終極目標。

????大約20年前，成為合伙人的好處顯而易見。首先，它意味著薪酬上調，而且，合伙人與準合伙人的職責劃分也涇渭分明。當時的合伙人是一家公司或事務所少數幾個股東之一。但如今，“要成為一名股權合伙人比以往任何時候都要困難，”《美國律師》（American Lawyer）的總編羅賓?斯巴克曼稱?！八枰L的時間，對律師的要求也更苛刻?！?/p>

????《美國律師》搜集的數據顯示，2000年，（按照營收排名的）美國200強律師事務所全部合伙人中約78%是股權合伙人，到了2010年，這些事務所的股權合伙人比例下降到了62%。

????成為合伙人就等于拿到黃金入場券的日子已經一去不復返了。事實上，有時情況可能還正好相反。舉例來說，本月早些時候，由于公司事先向合伙人承諾的一些特殊待遇未能兌現，杜威路博國際律師事務所（Dewey & LeBoeuf）有約20名合伙人集體離職。同時，在投資銀行界，近幾個月來高盛（Goldman Sachs）也有相當比例的合伙人離職?；蛟S可以說，十年前當高盛從純粹的合伙企業轉變為一家上市公司起，高盛的文化就已經開始轉型了。

????過去幾十年來，隨著金融公司和律師事務所的擴張、兼并和全球化，少數人持股的模式已經土崩瓦解。接著，經濟衰退來襲，這些公司可分發給員工的錢也減少了。如今，隨著很多事務所開始重新招聘，每家事務所對內部等級制度的定義也發生了變化。

????“律師事務所不得不面對現實，它們不能讓太多人成為股權合伙人，否則將無法生存，”律師事務所咨詢公司Edge International的創始合伙人加里?瑞斯金表示。因此，他說，一些事務所將合伙人分成了三六九等，處在頂層的是股權合伙人；其他等級的合伙人“可能會參照其他事務的做法，或者只是一種更體面的薪酬支付方式?！?/p>

????“合伙人這個字眼的含義就跟癌癥一樣寬泛，”美國董事協會（American Board Association）法律管理業務部的肯?揚稱。“它在商界有一定意義，但人們需要挖掘這名頭下的具體內涵?！?/p>

????"I just made partner" sure sounds like music to the ears. It's a line many early-career employees at law firms and investment banks aim to say one day.

????But making partner doesn't mean what it used to. It hasn't for a while, in fact. And still, many entering the workforce covet that milestone.

????Why? There are a couple of reasons, most of them having to do with tradition and pay. And while making partner isn't meaningless, job seekers entering the workforce should question whether it's a solid end-goal.

????About 20 years ago, the benefits of making partner at a firm were clear. It meant a pay increase, first of all, and there was a distinction of responsibilities between partners and associates. A partner was one of few shareholders in the company or firm. But these days, "it's harder than ever to become an equity partner," says Robin Sparkman, the editor in chief of the American Lawyer, "it takes longer, and the demands on that lawyer are more stringent."

????According to data collected by the American Lawyer, about 78% of all partners at the top 200 law firms (ranked by revenue) were equity partners in 2000. By 2010, 62% of partners at these firms had the same status.

????No longer is making partner a golden ticket. In fact, in some cases, it can mean the opposite. Earlier this month, for example, about 20 partners at law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf left en masse after the firm couldn't make good on some of the promised perks of partnership. And, in the world of investment banking, Goldman Sachs (GS) has seen its fair share of partner-level departures in recent months. Arguably, Goldman's culture started to change about a decade ago when it transitioned from a true partnership to a public company.

????The model of having a firm with a small group of owners who held equity stakes began to break down over the past couple of decades as financial and legal firms expanded, merged, and globalized. Then the recession hit, and firms simply had less money to give to people. Now, as many are starting to rehire, each defines its internal hierarchy differently.

????"Law firms just have to face the reality that they can't make too many people equity partners or they can't survive," says Gerry Riskin, founding partner of law firm consulting firm Edge International. As a result, he says, some offer tiered partnerships with equity partners at the top. Other levels of partnership, Riskin says, "may be based on what other firms are doing, or may be just a glorified way of paying a salary."

????"Partner is as broad of a word as cancer is," says Ken Young, who is part of the American Board Association's Law Practice Management Section. "To the business community, it means something, but people need to dig beneath the title."