Law People : Law Practice Management, Organizational and Personal Dynamics; Talent Management : Ronda Muir of Law People Management, Inc.

In case you haven't been keeping tabs on the school yard fights about emotional intelligence, you can get a quick taste by checking out the Newsweek NurtureShock Blog interview last fall (and its related predecessors and successors) of Daniel Goleman, who became the once and forever media champion of EI with the publication in 1995 of his book Emotional Intelligence; Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, followed by more articles, books and interviews than you can count.

Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, authors of 2009's NurtureShock, which selectively undercuts the validity of various social-improvement efforts while trumpeting their own views, took on Goleman on the topic of "is 'emotional intelligence' real" (note the internal quotes), asking him questions that are "probing" by their lights and "gotcha" by others'.  Goleman sat still for a few answers, which the NurtureShock people later summarized as "no real data."

The issues at hand are longstanding ones.  Goleman published his book at the time that the then Yale researchers John Mayer and Peter Salovey were just formulating some of their theories about emotional intelligence.  I have it from them directly that Goleman was one of the few in the audience listening to their updates on the state of the research and they still rue his jump on publishing the material.  He was a NYTimes journalist at the time and could tell from the response he was getting that people were interested in emotional intelligence, and that it struck them as true. His article on emotional intelligence in the Harvard Business Review had the distinction of being the most reprinted article of any that had been published to date.

But Goleman did stretch in trying to connect the dots between the nascent research and the exciting implications he could imagine for business.  Salovey, now Dean at Yale, has repeated in many forums what Bronson and Merryman cite, that Goleman went further than the research did. There is less animosity and divergence, though, than that statement might suggest.  Certainly Salovey and  Mayer are convinced of the existence of emotional intelligence and its importance and have conducted and collected some fascinating results about it.  They themselves devised the definitive "abilities-based" assessment for EI that I and many others use.  Goleman was just the sometimes overenthusiastic messenger, which he tries to ratchet down in the latest editions of his book.

Some argue that neuroscience is absorbing and outdating aspects of psychology.  "Executive function," occurring in the prefrontal cortex, is evidenced in the brain's maturation and is a significant driver of higher functions, such as organizing complicated work and relating to others in complicated social circumstances.  The NurtureShock folks are laying bets on that function outdating the concept of emotional intelligence at least to some extent.

Goleman did politely preface his comments in the interview with Bronson and Merryman by saying that he had heard NurtureShock was good, although he pointedly said he hadn't had time yet to read it.  And he thanked Bronson and Merryman for the refreshing chance "to take part in intelligent and civil discourse."  In turn, they thanked Goleman for being "generous" with his time and "welcomed" him back for further discussion, before pointing out the questions he didn't answer.

But, as various commentators implied, evidence abounded in the interchange that neither high executive functioning nor high emotional intelligence guarantees a cogent or even respectful approach to this particular controversy.

Thankfully the research goes on.

Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Muir recently led an Introduction to the Business of Law seminar for junior associates at an AmLaw 100 firm. The presentation is customized to the firm and is gauged to bolster associates'  engagement and loyalty and to improve their productivity. 

Topics include a definition of terms, such as utilization, realization and cash management, and a discussion of what drives the economics of law firms, the impact of current marketplace trends, as well as how all these factors influence every associate's career, and what they can do to benefit themselves and their firm.

Director of Professional Development: "Associates called me specifically to thank me for setting this up; others said that the topic answered a lot of questions they wanted to know about (but probably wouldn't have asked). Several who didn't make it called to ask if I had recorded it because everyone said it was a good presentation...plus I appreciate that you were great to work with."

Partner in charge: "This was a very helpful presentation--a number of associates came up to me afterward to say how thought -provoking it was. It is difficult at times, particularly with the most junior associates, to get them to ask the questions they want to ask. You answered many of them in your presentation. We look forward to doing this again."

Firm Consultant: "The presentation was excellent. Law is a business like any other business. Every attorney, particularly at these large firms, should know about what you discussed in your presentation."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent upsurge in the financial well-being of small and mid-sized firms, and their lower hourly rates, has left some wondering if the Age of Convergence is waning.  The eponymous DuPont Model, developed in the 1990s, started a consultant-fed surge of mergers and consolidations of firms in pursuit of making or remaining on the preferred provider lists that major corporations were furiously winnowing. Only by offering a broad range of expertise could firms hope to produce the economies of scale--efficiency, cross-pollination, etc--that corporations were after, or so the party line went. 

Never mind that not a single metric showed that bigger firms produced any such economies for the corporations.  The burgeoning size of those firms, and the costs of supporting them, meant that hourly rates kept going up. 

Nor did the hoped-for economic wins for the firms themselves come through.  "Cross-selling" says Mark Chandler, innovative and outspoken GC of Cisco, "is my enemy."

It is then somewhat surprising to see the 2009 ACC/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey report a record number of inside counsel citing their commitment, in the interest of reducing legal fees, to implementing... convergence. 

Perhaps we have overlooked the biggest advantage to corporations of having fewer law firms in the bullpen--the ease of leveraging them into lower fees.  Take away a $20,000 contract review and few firms would flinch.  Threaten to take away a cross-firm client generating millions in revenue and even the sassiest firm would sit down at the negotiating table.

So put one in the clients' column--sure, fewer law firms to deal with, so inside counsel may achieve some modicum of efficiency, but the real coup is in putting themselves in a position to dictate fees. As the report  "Law Firm of the 21st Century: The Clients' Revolution," prepared by Eversheds, concludes, the economic recession has shifted the balance of power in the legal marketplace toward general counsel (according to 3/4th of those surveyed).  And the shift is here to stay, 78% believe.

Oh, by the way, the 2009 ACC/Serengeti Survey reports that, for the first time in nine years, inside counsel anticipate no rise in billable rates in 2010.  They should know.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As our entry Barbarians at the Partnership Gate? on January 10 predicted, the great partner smack down is getting under way, and the first out of the box is Howrey's announcement last month that it was dismissing up to 10% of its partners. Mayer Brown's recent firing of 28 lawyers included counsel, another tier of long-term lawyers, in addition to associates.

Howrey's Managing Partner Robert Ruyak was a panelist at the Georgetown Center for the Study of the Legal Profession's conference entitled "Law Firm Evolution: Brave New World or Business as Usual?" last month.  He and other managing partners there acknowledged that, in addition to pruning partner ranks, lower compensation expectations are likely part of the longer-term fallout of the recent downturn.  Those lower levels will put partner compensation, Ruyak pointed out, closer in line with the historical pace of increases that existed before the irrational exuberance that we all enjoyed over the last decade.

Managing your partners' expectations regarding compensation over the next few years will be a monumental task.  Partners are going to be expecting, impatiently, for compensation to rise and will look to push out older partners, drastically reduce expenses, and advocate for anything else, short of scorching the very earth they occupy, that will help drive up compensation. Firms must be well-equipped to deal with the conflict, attrition and problematic morale that compensation issues will generate.

Now is the time to start that process of managing expectations.  The first step is to reassure partners that the firm has a strategy for stability and and even growth over the next years ahead. Are you prepared for the first step?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Should we be identifying and spotlighting our superstar associates? Recent research may be pointing to an unexpected answer. 

Economic tournament theory addresses competitive situations where success is based on relative rather than absolute performance (think sports games vs. standardized test results).  While competitive situations can often lead to motivated employees who work hard for top spots, recent research has found that the presence of a "superstar" can reverse that dynamic, making the competitors give up in the face of likely defeat.

Jonah Lehrer's article in the April 3-4 weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal specifically raises the question as to whether these recent findings in tournament theory about the disabling effect of superstars might account for, among other things, lackluster performance of associates in law firms. Given that this particular tournament often ends in an up-or-out decision (particularly given the recent trends), and that the number of lawyers who make partner will be even fewer than the historical few, the supposition is made that once associates recognize they are not up to a superstar level, they may actually lower than performance. 

As further ammunition for that concern, we note that the recent trend toward merit-based promotion and compensation systems will make the superstars more apparent to everyone in the firm and also earlier than under the old lock-step system.  So what do we do now?

Lehrer's article implies that hiring the "best" candidate, if it means someone who will leave the others in the dust, might not be the best approach.  Should firms really consider such a "not the best" approach?

We would make a more pointed recommendation--hiring only those candidates who can truly compete will keep the tournament in a healthy realm.  Firms can start by hiring a smaller class that they heavily invest in (in terms of assessing initial strengths and weaknesses, providing professional development and supporting personal morale).  Couple that increased "glue" with the possibility of a larger proportion of the smaller group being likely to make partner, and firms are likely to be well on the way to a harder working associate group.  And that scenario is consistent with other trends encouraging lower leverage.

A win/win all around.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link