On Wednesday, February 17, 2009 Muir will lecture students at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program on improving management decision-making, using law firm management committees as a case study. Based in part on the article "Promoting an Effective Board or Management Group," the discussion will explore, among other subjects, optimal personality traits for good decision-making, how to construct effective teams and the challenge of avoiding extreme decisions.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir has been selected by Patrick McKenna (co-author of First Among Equals and Herding Cats) as one of a select group of law firm consultants available to advise law firm leaders under McKenna's ENABLE program--Executive Network of Advisory Boards for Leadership Excellence, which McKenna describes below. 

"Now, more than ever, being a Firm Chair or Managing Partner and leading a professional service firm is a monumental task. Even more critical, how do you handle sensitive or strategic challenges when your previous experience has not adequately prepared you?

Corporate CEO’s who have used Advisory Boards rate them as "very effective" as sounding boards and sources of management mentoring. They also give these boards high ratings for offering ideas, influencing strategy, sharing business contacts, and providing business or industry intelligence.

The primary challenge to making Advisory Boards work for professional service firm leaders lies in recruiting and assembling a group of talented confidants willing to serve on these boards and then having an experienced resource available to help firm leaders get their Advisory Boards up-and-running effectively. The ENABLE program is dedicated to those two objectives."

For additional information, contact Muir at RMuir@RobinRolfeResources or McKenna at patrick@patrickmckenna.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the important implications of Muir's article "What the New Law Firm Looks Like: The Reinvention of a Reluctant Industry" is that going forward firms will require the close involvement of sophisticated management professionals who are not necessarily or even preferably lawyers to help design and manage change.  These critical players will not only assist in initially envisioning the goals of the firm and its related programs and in easing the various players toward them through the transition period, but will also remain important in ongoing firm management in order to make those initiatives fully operational and successful over the long term.

In the past many law firms have often taken a pass when it comes to building the depth and quality of their non-lawyer professional staff.  For the most part we aren't that focused on these "unseen" professionals--there are going to be complaints about them within the firm anyway and rarely does a client interact with them.  So the firm librarian could be a dud, and the head of recruitment simply cheerful. 

We seem to realize marketing and technology advisers (and at the bigger firms, the professional development directors) have some importance, but still we often opt for less sophisticated, less expensive personnel who act more as placeholders than change agents, undercutting their potential effectiveness from the start. We tend to hire them young and tell them what to do and even sometimes how to do it.  After all, lawyers are the ones who really head all of these areas: the non-legal staff are simply assistants and overhead to boot.

The problem is that lawyers are no longer the experts in all the areas that law firms need expertise in. 

For example, Muir notes that firms will develop "serious project management skills that focus on evaluating and reviewing client goals (both fee-related and outcome-related) and managing matters to reach them."  Such skills include the technological capacity and human expertise to analyze, bid on and track client matters, including producing interim progress analyses to manage staffing and expenses and keep the client up to date.  Lawyers working on those projects need to be spending their time doing what they do best--providing legal services, and should rely on non-legal professionals to fine tune the timing and extent of those services. 

Similarly, "staff managers" acting like purchasing managers are likely to be responsible for engaging and managing a complex and highly changeable array of lawyers and services for specific and often fixed-term projects.  They will need the technology and expertise to manage a large database of information on individual lawyers, temp providers and outsourcers, produce contracts, evaluate performance and follow up complaints and contract violations.

Making "frequent and accurate evaluations of lawyers and staff and effectively using targeted training" are not only complex processes in themselves requiring careful analysis but become critical to morale and retention as these evaluations and trainings impact compensation in the new merit and competency models (see, for example, "The Issues in Moving From Law Firm Lockstep to 'Levels' Compensation").  And those charged with determining compensation based on multiple indices and complex formulas applied across numerous parties similarly need to have reliably sophisticated expertise.  The mid-level partner who doesn't have a lot of client work these days isn't the best choice to run with these valuable, exacting tasks.

Finally, "building relationships, which is key to exerting leadership influence, will be more challenging," and firms are likely to require more leadership time from their leaders--whether firm-wide or practice group leaders--which implies more time diverted from practice to firm management and more reliance on professional assistance.  Work assignment evaluation and management, leadership development, diversity compliance, client succession planning--these tasks can be taken on or assisted by non-lawyer professionals with the appropriate skills.

Of course, these professionals mean a rise in overhead--whether you obtain your expertise by in-house personnel or from outside consultants, another reason profits are likely to be diluted going forward.

But we lawyers can't effectively do all these jobs.  We can't because we are not diverse enough in our approaches and talents (see "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers").  We not only haven't been trained in the relevant areas--project management, talent  evaluation, competency testing--but we also aren't likely to be naturally inclined toward or good at the process, patience and attention to the types of details that are required. Or if per chance there are lawyers among us who are so inclined or talented, we are not likely to know who they are.

There is the problem of overcoming the legal ego--it's not important if we can't do it well, and conversely, if it's important, then we can do it--but don't let that attitude be what keeps your firm from moving ahead.  Good management these days lies in identifying and locating needed expertise, not in attempting to be it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir led an inter-active limited-attendance roundtable on Law Practice Management for Current and Prospective Law Firm Leaders at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) in Chicago, Illinois on Thursday, September 17, 2009.  Topics discussed included the distinction between managers and leaders, the importance of values-driven firm identity, the role of practice group leaders in moving the firm forward, and transitioning from consensus-led management to more executive approaches.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Not only do lawyers score very differently from the rest of the population on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (see Muir's article "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers"), but it appears that a lawyer was responsible for the development of the assessment in the first place. 

According to the Center for Applications of Psychological Types, Inc.  (CAPT),  the organization Isabel Briggs Myers established to research and maintain the assessment, the MBTI was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel in the middle of the 20th century because of questions they had about Isabel's husband, who was a lawyer.

Katharine’s father (Isabel's grandfather) was on the faculty of Michigan Agricultural College (now Michigan State University) and her husband (Isabel's father) was a research physicist who became Director of the Bureau of Standards in Washington. Isabel had a bachelor’s degree in political science from Swarthmore College, where she met and later married Clarence Myers, who became a lawyer.

Katharine first became interested in types because her son-in-law Clarence was so different from the rest of the family, CAPT reports. To try to help them both better understand Clarence, Katharine introduced Isabel to Jung’s book, Psychological Types, which was published in1921.

As they worked on the indicator during World War II, Myers' and Briggs' goal became “to show how our differences... can be valuable rather than divisive, and can be used constructively . . . to promote personal development . . . manage conflict and . . . increase human understanding worldwide,” and specifically to help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be "most comfortable and effective."

The Myers' marriage was by all reports happy and long-lived, so Isabel's inquiry into types may have proved productive not only for the greater world--where over 50 million MBTI assessments have been given, making it the oldest and most widely used personal style instrument. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regardless of what you think of Sonia Sotomayor's politics, President Obama has touted his Supreme Court nominee as having two distinct qualities that he implies our judges don't always have:  practicality and empathy. 

What is the likelihood that any such description of her is correct?  And on what basis can we make such judgments?

A look at what we know about lawyers' personal styles as shown on various assessments indicates that, indeed, lawyers are most likely to be "high concept" thinkers, or "Intuitors" according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).  Over half of lawyers are Intuitors, while only 1/4th of the general public are. That type of thinker stands in contrast to those who are more concrete and thus better able to see practical implications--the MBTI type called "Sensors." Almost 3/4th of the general public but less than half of lawyers are Sensors. Perhaps Sotomayor's reputation for being practical arises from her being in that smaller group of more concrete lawyers.

Lawyers are also more likely than the general public to be MBTI "Thinkers" instead of "Feelers," a distinction that recognizes how people make decisions.  Thinkers rely more heavily on objectivity--stepping away from the issue, while Feelers are more likely to make decisions using empathy--putting themselves into the scenario to see what it feels like.  More than three-quarters of lawyers are Thinkers, while less than half of the general public is.  This decision-making style is also the one MBTI type where gender plays a role--about half of men in the general population are Feelers, as are 2/3rds of women.  Among lawyers, 4/5ths of male lawyers and 2/3rds of female lawyers are Thinkers.  As a woman, Sotomayor has a statistically better chance of being more inclined to empathic decision making.

Armchair psychologizing obviously has its risks, but simply looking at the MBTI odds makes it likely that there is in fact a basis for thinking that practicality and empathy are in shorter supply among lawyers, and therefore among judges, than out in the rest of the world.  So regardless of her various policy and political leanings, Ms. Sotomayor might in fact be able to bring those very attributes to the Supreme Court bench.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Collaboration in the form of teamwork may be the 21st Century's technology, in that it promises strides in greater productivity--but only when done well.  It can also veer from chaos to constipation. David Maister's famous article Are Law Firms Manageable? questions whether lawyers can make the transition from "a managerial approach based on partner autonomy to new approaches that can create a well-coordinated set of team players." Well, can we?

After seeing double digit increases in firms that have implemented team systems--management, marketing,  industry and client teams--and an increase in work satisfaction among team members, an initial question many interested law firms have is how to go about setting up and managing teams.  Luckily, research provides some guidance that can help firms successfully achieve productive teamwork.  The following is a summary of Muir's presentation on effective teamwork at Swarthmore College's 2009 Lax Conference.

In 1965 Bruce Tuckman, an organizational psychologist, established modern team theory, refined most recently by Dr. Susan Wheelan, professor of Psychological Studies and Faculty Director of the Training and Development Center at Temple University.

The stages of teamwork, according to these models, are 1) forming, 2) storming, 3) norming, and 4) performing.  The forming stage, even among lawyers, can be marked by tentative and polite accommodation.  Unsure of their roles and the leader's competence, team participants need the leader to be clear, directive and highly structured during this first stage. This is not the time for a consensual  "Well, what do you think we should do?" approach.  Also, if you have the luxury of choosing team members, choosing those who are different from each other in their attitudes and skills and who are able to articulate and, when appropriate, stick by their opinions produces the best mix for a team. See our entry Promoting an Effective Board or Management Group for additional discussion of what attributes to look for in team members and how to promote their best contribution.

During the second, storming stage, the politeness wears thin and team members, particularly lawyers, will test the leader and stake out their positions with each other to determine what their authority and parameters will be.  Conflict is often a result.  This is a positive development.  Handled well, the team will learn from experience that it is safe to engage in conflict, and that issues can be settled without lasting acrimony or division, even if it requires agreeing to disagree.  This is the basis on which trust and respect is established.  Leaders are often criticized during this stage (and sometimes asked to step down) as much because of their role as because of their personal attributes or performance.  Leaders who can keep from reacting defensively will avoid exacerbating and prolonging this stage, which, being awkward and uncomfortable, helps propel the group to resolve their differences and move forward into the next stage.  Leaders should emphasize during this stage the importance of keeping debate, which is useful, focused on the issues and not the personalities involved.

During the third, norming stage, based on the higher level of trust achieved during the 2nd stage, the group's goals are revised and a division of labor, with clear roles, is determined. The problem in law firms is that often lawyers don't make it out of stage 2.  Tenacious about protecting their authority and unwilling to trust those in a leadership role or those to whom work must be delegated, these lawyers can keep the team locked in unnecessary meetings and conflict, which may feel to them more like sport than discomfort.  Yet it is only in stage 3 that delegation becomes effective and the individuals are freed up to do their part of the team's work.

Stage 4 is performing, which is the highly productive stage that teams are made for.  At this point, if members are added or removed, or the goals or delegation changes significantly, the team may regress back to an earlier stage and have to work its way through the process again.

Goals that are most amenable to team accomplishment are ones that require collective action, i.e. those which no one person could accomplish on his/her own, and that are meaningful, even inspiring.  The most effective teams have an emotional commitment to the goal, so framing goals as being in the individual team members' interests is vital. 

Team goals should be specific, measurable and attainable, with a real deadline that allows the team's work to culminate in a completed project.  Ongoing timeframes make it difficult to maintain team motivation and momentum.

Ideally, team members spend about 75% of the team time on accomplishing their tasks and 25% on participating in the team process, i.e. attending status meetings, maintaining group relations and performing housekeeping tasks. Procedure can be important.  For example, lawyers are largely introverts who need time to formulate their opinions, so distributing an agenda in advance of a meeting and not requiring decisions to be made at the meeting allows them to both prepare for discussion and come to a reasoned conclusion afterward.

OK everyone, team up!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A well-known investment banker confided recently that lawyers are partly to blame for the financial meltdown.  Why, apart from wanting to deflect the responsibility to someone other than bankers? 

The reasoning was that, particularly with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley, lawyers have become such an integral part of the business process that their bias toward risk-aversion has seeped into the bones of corporate decision-making, making those decisions technically compliant but shortsighted from a policy and business standpoint.  Life without lawyers, or at least life with fewer lawyers, according to this highly-respected viewpoint, would improve business and the economy.

Covington & Burling partner Philip Howard arrives at a similar conclusion for somewhat different reasons.  He contends in his new book "Life Without Lawyers" that a fear of litigation has stricken many of America's industries, including both health care and education, paralyzing doctors and teachers, among others. "It's as if everyone has a little lawyer on their shoulder whispering in their ear all day long," he says. Howard argues that the economic crisis presents a needed opportunity to overhaul the legal system. With an activist president and a Congress controlled by Democrats, he sees major structural changes on the horizon.

"An essential component to making anything work that's broken is rebuilding the legal infrastructure," Howard says. It's harder to change the rules in times of prosperity, he says, but the challenging times ahead could initiate just such a reset.

A recent series of front-page New York Times articles reports that worker-compensation programs, designed to fairly and efficiently compensate workers for workplace injuries, is neither: bureaucratic gridlock and expense have resulted in a high-cost system for employers that is slow and inefficient in compensating deserving employees.  Who is to blame for these problems?  Lawyers.  Both those working inside these programs and those on the outside who made a "fair and efficient" alternate system necessary in the first place.

Finally, if you are not already doubled over from guilt, a Talk of the Town entry by Jane Mayer in the April 13, 2009 issue of The New Yorker recounts the research of English barrister Philippe Sands into the activities of the six Bush Administration officials, including William J. Haynes II, former Pentagon general counsel, who are being sued this week in Spain for the torture of Spanish citizens at Abu Ghraib. Sands' conclusion: "I've got a particular bugbear about lawyers.  If not for lawyers, none of these abuses would have ever occurred."

So there you have it.  Not only are our finances in disarray but our reputations and future prospects are sinking faster than a rock.  

There is no doubt that data shows that lawyers are more risk-averse, analytical, pessimistic, short-sighted and zero-sum out-to-win-oriented than their business contemporaries/clients.  Those same attributes often are what makes them good lawyers--able to see and remedy highly technical compliance and other problems that others cannot and win verdicts for their clients in a zero-sum justice system.  But, as with all good things, there are also downsides.

One challenge that lawyers are going to have in the new age dawning is to refashion in a major way at least the perception and probably also the reality of their impact on business and the economy.  The (very) old perception of lawyers as trusted advisors has given way to something closer to that of self-interested leeches who manage to rain on everyone's parade while siphoning off a percentage of GNP. 

As always, it is the balance that is key.  Lawyers can genuinely assert expertise in a number of areas that business people need and lack.  And lawyers should be compensated for that expertise.  And certainly lawyers are obligated to take stands to protect their clients and to avoid allegations against themselves of malpractice or furthering crime.  However, maintaining respect for the business process, even when it differs from how lawyers would do it, structuring your practice (and your fees) so that reaching the goals the client sets is the driving force, remaining cognizant of the lawyer's role of delivering services rather than achieving dominance-- these are changes of attitudes easier advocated than done. 

How to accomplish those changes is not found in any class any of us took in law school. A careful look at each firm's practice, its values and its strategic plan--and how those influence client service and associate and leadership development on the ground, rather than just in classrooms--is a critical first step to finding the appropriate balance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article by psychologist Amy J.C.Cuddy in the February 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review reports that we make fast assessments of people on two bases:  their intentions and their competence.  And more importantly, we assume one is related to the other.  This response is evolutionarily linked, she argues, to the advantage of quickly determining whether an unknown person 1) is friendly or hostile and 2) can follow through on their threats or promises. 

Unfortunately our assessments are often marred by biases that produce faulty judgments.  For example, we have a bias towards the elderly as being incompetent but non-threatening.

In the business world jungle, these instant assessments can carry long-term consequences, particularly if they are inaccurate because of poor perception skills (a common problem area for lawyers) or individual biases.  Inaccurate assessments can lead managers to trust untrustworthy associates or undervalue potentially important people.  They can also undermine efforts to build effective teams and retain valuable employees. 

Which One Are You?

For our work with lawyers, the more important finding of the research is that people see "warmth" and "competence" as inversely related:  a surfeit of one ("She's SO nice") is believed to imply a deficit in the other ("She probably can't stand up to a board").  For example, employees who are  consistently perceived as "warmer" are also viewed as less competent, with the practical result that employees who are mothers are often demonstrably underpaid and under-promoted.

While lawyers as a group are not usually at risk for being rated high on the warmth scale, leaders who know the importance of interpersonal relationships, and particularly women, often struggle with portraying to clients and colleagues the "right mix" of warmth and competence, fearing, just as the research tends to show, that too much of the former undercuts the perception of the latter. 

There is some trepidation in telling lawyers not to be too warm--certainly there are those who would argue there is little risk there.  Yet, particularly at a time when, rightfully, the legal world is exhorted to value and praise and build relationships, knowing how to do that practically without impairing the legal product produced, either in actuality or in the perception, is important.

Our advice has long been to bifurcate these two parts of leadership:  warmth is important and should be directed toward individuals, while critical analysis should be directed toward issues, not people.  

Whether with clients or colleagues, inquire about the kids, rib them about their  diet and praise them for their recent efforts, but when you review the business product, do not stint on hard analysis.  In both conflict resolution and decision-making research, similar findings make it clear that too pervasive an effort to build cohesion can overwhelm the validity and productivity of the underlying endeavor. The hard but important work of critical give-and-take can be mortally blunted by attempts to be "nice."

In order to improve our judgments and others' perceptions of us, Cuddy suggests that we also spend time working to reeducate ourselves and our employees away from the savannah influence:  don't be too quick to make judgments in these two areas, and do not assume that kindness and competence are mutually exclusive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a February 8, 2009 New York Times op ed column entitled "Mistresses of the Universe," Nicholas Kristof notes that senior staff meetings of Wall Street types resemble “a urologist’s waiting room” and suggests that "Wall Street could use an infusion of women as well as cash." 

Having more women in financial services might counter some of the risk-taking and competitive urges fostered by high levels of testosterone and would improve decision-making, according to the research Kristof cites.  In addition to suffering from testosterone-overload, men are also found in the studies he cites to be “particularly likely to make high-risk bets when under financial pressure and surrounded by other males of similar status. Women’s risk-taking was unaffected by this kind of peer pressure.” 

Of course, women managers also have their Achilles heels. The January 2009 Harvard Business Review includes a 360-degree feedback study by Herminia Ibarra and Otilia Obodaru that finds that female leaders are perceived to be strong in traits such as tenacity and emotional intelligence, but trail men in one important aspect: their superiors, peers and subordinates say that women leaders lack vision.

Better Performance in Diversity. Regardless of our specific gender strengths and weaknesses, the data on the advantages of having diverse management is piling up. Two separate studies in 2008, one by Catalyst, an organization that supports expanded opportunities for women at work, and the other by management consultant McKinsey & Co., looked at gender in management and found that companies with more female executives perform better. 

Why would that be?  University of California-Irvine professor emeritus Judy Rosener says brain scans prove that men and women think differently. Rosener says she's concluded that a company with a mix of male and female leaders, with their differing attitudes regarding risk, collaboration and ambiguity, will outperform a competitor who relies on the leadership of a single sex.

Women aren't better, Rosener says, but they bring to the table something that men don't.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What happens to our ability to make good decisions going forward when we and all the world are gripped in fear of what we might lose (or already have lost)?

Gregory Berns, director of the Center for Neuropolicy at Emory University, makes a good case in a recent New York Times article for the profound impact fear has on our decision-making. 

As part of an experiment seeking to replicate on humans the effects of the old electrified Skinner box conditioning, participants were advised that they would receive a shock after a time period of one to 30 seconds. For most people, it was the wait that was most uncomfortable. Anticipating the (mild) pain was worse for them than actually receiving the shock. Everyone preferred to experience the shock immediately rather than wait for it, and nearly a third elected to receive a bigger shock right away rather than wait for a smaller one.

From an economic or policy standpoint, that result is illogical--a bigger shock whenever received is patently worse than a smaller one. What is clear is that fear of the pain—deployed in anticipation of the shock—took such a large toll physiologically and psychologically on the participants that they had less available energy and neural processing power to rationally assess their next move. 

 

The same parts of the brain activated in this experiment are also active when people must part with something that is valuable to them, and a similar pattern is observable. The implication is that when we anticipate any kind of loss, we exert a lot of energy to hold onto what we have, diverting that energy from endeavors that may well better serve us.

 

When the fear/loss system is activated, exploratory activity and risk taking are turned off and data processing is impaired.  Of course, if everyone reacts this way, not only is there a downward economic spiral, but the overall level of cognitive functioning also drops. 

 

Which means that progress is impaired. Just at the time when we are most in need of it.

 

And the more fear there is, the more fear there is likely to be. 

 

In a recent double blind study, researchers from Stony Brook University in New York found that participants were actually able to "smell fear" produced on the clothes of 40 volunteers who went on their first skydive, compared to a second group of non-skydivers who had simply been narrated a frightening story.  In an MRI scanner, the participants showed increased activity in their amygdala and hypothalamus in reaction to the fear they smelled--in other words, smelling fear in others engendered fear in the participants. 

 

Further, the experience of fear (and perhaps anger) primes the over-perception of fearful and anger-inducing scenarios, making us see more fearful scenarios than may actually exist.  In a series of experiments involving a broad range of types of stimuli, happy subjects perceived more happy faces and friendly interpersonal scenes while fearful and angry subjects perceived more fearful and angry faces and hostile interpersonal scenes. Thus, being in a fearful place not only reduces your capacity to best get out of it, it actually magnifies your negative experience by distorting your perceptions.

 

Psychologist Abraham Maslow said "I can feel guilty about the past, apprehensive about the future, but only in the present can I act. The ability to be in the present moment is a major component of mental wellness."

 

What to do to get out of the grip of fear and into the present? Berns suggests that in order to neutralize that brain drain, you have to reduce the instigators of fear:  avoid the fearmongers, turn off the disturbing news and stay away from the market tickers.  Being more positive (hard for us pessimistic lawyers) and consciously looking for opportunity and how to move forward constructively can take you out of the preoccupations that are distracting you from the important business at hand.

 

We only have fear itself to fear.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 18, 2009 Muir will lecture students at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program on how to improve management decision-making. Based in part on the article "Promoting an Effective Board or Management Group," the discussion will explore, among other subjects, optimal personality traits for good decision-making, constructing effective teams and avoiding extreme decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What does behavioral science and our expertise about lawyers tell us about President and Mrs. Obama, who are both Harvard-educated lawyers?

Assessments.   A number of assessment tools give us a profile of what a typical lawyer's attributes are. Lawyers on average score one or two standard deviations higher on IQ assessments (i.e. 115-130) than the general US population.  Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, lawyers are likely to have the following personality types:  "introversion" (need for time alone to think and recharge), "intuition" (greater comfort with concepts than with details), "thinking" (decision-making based on objective reasoning rather than empathic compassion) and "judging" (a work style that methodically charts out and completes goals).  According to the Caliper Profile, compared to the general population, lawyers generally have high levels of skepticism and strong abstract reasoning skills, highly prefer autonomy ("I am the boss of me"), exhibit a strong sense of urgency, show low resilience in the face of setbacks (and criticism), and are often uncomfortable and/or unskilled at forming and building relationships ("sociability").  Of the five conflict resolution styles, lawyers tend to use only two:  competing ("I want to win") and avoidance, compared to the collaboration that business people often prefer.  Lawyers also have on average lower (by one standard deviation) emotional intelligence than the general US population and are much more pessimistic.

Handedness. President Obama, as he recently pointed out when signing his first Executive Order, is a lefty. Mrs. Obama is right-handed.

Humans--while not the only species to exhibit handedness--are and have been for over 5,000 years the only one with a consistent, strongly preferred handedness. Ninety-three percent (93%) of humans are right-handed and a higher proportion of males than females are left-handed.

The left hemisphere of the human brain processes things in parts and sequentially, and is usually the center for language, science, mathematics, and logic. When the left side of the brain is dominant, it controls the right side of the body, making these individuals right-handed.  The right side of the brain synthesizes and is a source of dreams, fantasies, art, music, and feeling, and is dominant in left-handed individuals.  Almost half of left-handers also use their right hemisphere for language.  Lefties are therefore more likely to mix emotion and language, vision and feeling.

Is it better to be left-handed?  Research on handedness tends to place the abilities of left-handers at the extremes--over-represented among both the gifted and the mentally challenged.  And a number of miscellaneous attributes are reported to be associated with being left-handed, including higher instances of allergies, alcoholism, epilepsy, eczema, thyroid problems, and a shorter life-span by an average of nine years.  Also, a significantly higher portion of male lefties than righties are homosexual. 

What makes someone left-handed?  Premature birth, prolonged labor and breech births seem to correlate with babies who become left-handed. While there is no conclusive explanation for handedness, one theory suggests that the male hormone testosterone might be responsible. Large amounts of this hormone slow left hemisphere development in the male fetus and might explain the clear predominance of males among lefties. 

The hormonal theory also seems consistent with differences that have been found in cognitive performance at the intersection of handedness and gender.  For example, overall, males perform better than females on spatial tasks (a left hemisphere and therefore right-hand dominant task), while left-handed males perform poorer than right-handed males on those tests (and right-handed women perform poorer than left-handed women).  As to verbal abilities (a right hemisphere and therefore left-hand dominant task),  left-handed males out perform right-handed males (and, by the way, right-handed females out perform left-handed females).  So the picture that emerges is that left-handed males are most like right-handed women in their cognitive approaches. 

Analysis of career choices show, as would be expected (and I predicted in a college paper too many years ago to admit to), that a disproportionately high rate of left-handed males, consistent with their superior verbal abilities, are lawyers.  Similarly, I surmised (and as to which I can now claim vindication), right-handed women should also be over-represented among lawyers.

Blood Type.  Okay, we are starting to get a little far out here, I admit, but several theories contend that blood type relates to specific personality clusters, a result of metabolism and other organic forces that mold leaders, followers, bean-counters, risk-takers.  In Japan and other Asian countries, a resume often includes blood type to bolster the applicant's qualification for the job.  In any event, the Obamas' blood types do not seem to be publicly available and Barack Obama's mixed racial heritage (as well as some mixed race heritage on Michelle Obama's side) make assumptions based on race difficult.  Nonetheless, people of African ancestry are most often Type O, the original blood type.  According to Eat Right for Your Blood Type by Dr. Peter. J. D'Adamo, Type Os tend to be hardy and strong, are best fueled by a high protein diet and need heavy physical exercise.  Type Os also have a strong drive to succeed and often exhibit leadership qualities, including a willingness to take risks and, concomitantly, a high degree of optimism.  Former president Ronald Reagan, to whom Obama has been compared, was a Type O, as is Queen Elizabeth II and Charles, the Prince of Wales.

Education.  Moving on to nurture.  Some contend that a lawyer's law school affects how he/she approaches and resolves issues. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic contrasts the differences between the chaotic early days of Clinton's presidency with Obama's smooth and "brutally efficient" transition, concluding that part of the explanation for the difference "lies in the elite institutions that socialized them -- namely Yale and Harvard, their respective law schools."

According to Carolyn Elefant in the Legal Blog Watch, "Scheiber contrasts the rigor and competitiveness of Harvard Law School with the somewhat more relaxed environment at Yale. At Yale, class attendance wasn't required, and professors engaged students in broad policy discussions. By contrast, Harvard classes focused more tightly on legal issues. Likewise, at Yale, the law review conferred little prestige, because anyone could join, whereas at Harvard, law review participation depended upon grades and a writing competition. As a result, Harvard Law review editors like Obama stood a good chance at a coveted Supreme Court clerkship."

Brian Lauter at The Shark goes further to say that it is college that provides "the more formative experience. Personal identity, at least partially formed during the college years, guides the way we approach decisions and situations" -- including one's choice of law school.

Ultimately, Elefant agrees "that our personalities matter much more than where we attend school -- undergraduate or law school. Had Bill Clinton attended Harvard, he probably would have chafed against the rules and formalities with his less-disciplined personality, but I doubt that Harvard would have changed him. Likewise, if Obama had gone to Yale, it's not likely that the relaxed atmosphere would have encouraged him to drop his work ethic."
 

What's Different About the Obamas.  Of course we have more information about the Obamas than just that they are lawyers, what schools they went to and their handedness.  Some of the other information out there can help us piece together a more specific read on their personal work styles. 

First, the fact that both Obamas left the traditional law firm track makes them more likely to be exceptions to the average lawyer profile rather than the rule.  Lawyers who are high on extroversion, sociability, compassionate decision making, and optimism are often the ones most uncomfortable in law firm culture and the first ones to go.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the time of year when many of us take stock of our direction and goals and make plans to step up our effectiveness.  This particular year, 2009, many lawyers are facing an extremely difficult once-in-a-century marketplace for which no one has been truly prepared.  So we may also find ourselves questioning our ability to successfully grapple with the challenges ahead.  

How to acquire the skills that will improve your practice and advance your leadership in such a disorienting environment?

The old adage of two heads being better than one is born out by the data available on the results of coaching.  According to a January 13, 2009 article by Susan Letterman White in The Legal Intelligencer, "a research report by Diane Coutu and Carol Kauffman in the January Harvard Business Review found that coaching is a business tool most often used to develop the capabilities of high-potential performers or facilitate leadership transitions," and one which produces quantifiable benefits. "The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology has reported that coaching leads to higher interview ratings for individuals. Telecommunications Weekly reported in November that a change program, which included coaching, improved customer satisfaction by 10 percent and call resolution rates by 56 percent at Motorola. And according to a 2008 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, coaching of university faculty improved the writing process of professors who were under pressure to publish."

As Ms. White states, "coaching is to a lawyer what organizational development is to a law firm; they both foster intentional change toward particular goals through a collaborative process. The goals are those that move the client to a higher level of professional effectiveness...Most importantly, a good coach is paid to ask the right questions."

In addition, a good coach is one who listens.

Sheryl Axelrod of Hepburn Axelrod & White, a Philadelphia firm, was quoted in the article as extolling the benefits of coaching in a law firm context. "We worked with a coach who had an uncanny ability to not only listen to our needs, fears and desires for our firm, but our own internal dilemmas and concerns about each other."

Of course, after listening, a coach must also be able to help coachees arrive at and implement beneficial changes.  And those changes are sometimes unexpected.  In the Hepburn Axelrod case, "one of our partners...reach[ed] the difficult decision to leave the partnership."

But the proof is in the pudding.  "The result of the coaching is that our firm, on our own, and our former partner, on his own, are each thriving in a market in which most firms are doing worse, not better, than the year before, " Axelrod said.

Quantitative evaluations of coaching are rare, but those that have been done demonstrate conclusively its effectiveness and bottom-line contribution.  In an evaluation by MetrixGlobal of an executive coaching program provided by the Center for Performance Excellence in 2004 to Booz Allen partners and principals, results indicated that "all leaders readily applied what they gained from their coaching experiences to make significant strides in self-development, while over half (53%) made significant improvements in their relationships with peers and team members and some  leaders (19%) went on to significantly improve client relationships; gaining greater clarity about how their behavior impacted clients and being better able to respond to client issues."

Of eight business areas senior leaders expected executive coaching to impact, "two were found to be positively impacted by at least half of the leaders who were coached: teamwork (58%) and team member satisfaction (54%). Three other areas were selected by 31% of the leaders as having been impacted: quality of consulting, retention and productivity."

Monetary benefits were rigorously documented in this evaluation. "The total monetary benefits were $3,268,325 with four impact areas each producing at least a half million dollars of annualized benefit to the business: improved teamwork ($981,980), quality of consulting ($863,625), retention ($626,456) and team member satisfaction ($541,250). Given a total, fully loaded cost of the coaching of $414,310, the ROI was 689%."

Coaching can provide to all lawyers the simple but valuable assistance of a supportive yet out-of-the-law-firm-box perspective that can be critical when steering through dangerous waters--and that can positively impact the bottom line. That perspective can help you become a more effective  partner, develop individual business, expand your expertise, master management responsibilities and otherwise plan and implement the next step in your career (whether you are motivated to do so proactively or reactively).

At RRR, we offer confidential high-performance coaching programs of six to eighteen months that are tailored to your objectives and your schedule.  Contact us for a consultation on how we can help you achieve your goals in 2009.

Happy new year!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

David Brooks' editorial in the October 28, 2008 New York Times predicted that the current financial crisis would "amount to a coming-out party for behavioral economists and others who are bringing sophisticated psychology to the realm of public policy."  Of the four steps of decision-making--1) perceiving a situation, 2) thinking of possible courses of action, 3) calculating the best course, and 4) taking action, Brooks notes that the third step--rationally calculating and maximizing what is in the best interests of those involved--has long been considered the most important.  But he suggests that comments by "experts" like Alan Greenspan in his testimony before Congress, that he was "shocked" at market conditions, may drive us to reevaluate the importance of step one:  perceiving the situation.

In Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book "The Black Swan," published in 2007, he wrote that "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup."  Globalization, he noted, "creates interlocking fragility," and the growth of giant banks give the appearance of stability, while in reality, they raise the risk of a systemic collapse, for "when one fails, all fail."  But why didn't the financial movers and shakers perceive that to be the case?  Or even one possible case?

Behavioral economists have explanations for why so many smart people could have been so wrong about the risks that they were unwittingly taking.  Biases in our perception that distort our thinking include a tendency to see data that confirm our prejudices, a tendency to overvalue recent events as predictors, assigning a single causal narrative to coincidentally succeeding facts and applauding what we suppose to be our skill rather than recognizing the role of dumb luck.  And we can also get caught in social contagions that reinforce each other's (often poor) risk assessments. 

The solution that some propose for the financial arena is to have the government take on more of the job of assessing situations, and applying regulations.  Of course, government officials are probably going to be even worse perceivers of reality than private business types.  Their information feedback mechanism is more limited and, being deeply politicized, they're even more likely to filter out inconvenient facts. 

Lawyers, being for the most part pessimists, would seem to have the exact skill necessary to root out and protect against just this sort of unintended economic consequence.  Lawyers should be able to think of all the possible ways these various financial scenarios could go wrong, and at least sound the alarm if not plug the hole.  But the critical word here may be "think."

Our data on emotional intelligence in lawyers tells us that, when it comes to emotion, perceiving--correctly identifying the emotional currents at play--is what lawyers are least good at, accounting for a large proportion of the drop in average lawyer scores compared to general US population scores.  A number of experiments verify that being unable to tap into one's own and others emotions can mean a significant delay, or total failure, to identify risks or dangers that the emotional part of the brain is able to sense.  In a well-known card-playing experiment, recounted in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink," participants are able to emotionally identify (measured by blood pressure and heart rate) the decks of cards that are stacked against them many, many cards before they can rationally do so.

Of course it is not just lawyers who can be out of touch with their emotional red flags, and it wasn't just lawyers that got us into this imbroglio.  Plenty of non-lawyer MBAs, PhDs and other regular types clearly missed the perception boat this time.  Nonetheless, one step toward better perception in the world of finance and public policy would be for the legions of lawyers involved--at the SEC and other government entities, banks and financial institutions and law firms servicing them--to improve their connection with their and others' emotions, so that they can feel as well as think about the dangers out there, and hopefully avert just such a catastrophe as this one.  And the good news is that perception in this area of expertise can be improved. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 12, 2008 Muir is scheduled to discuss with students at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program how to improve decision-making.  Based in large part on the information contained in "Promoting an Effective Board or Management Group," the discussion will explore, among other subjects, optimal personality traits for good decision-making and how to avoid extreme decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What's the route to higher efficacy and productivity?  Might that be by staffing with "messy" groups?  So suggests a recent book entitled The Difference:  How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies by Scott E. Page, professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan. 

Using mathematical modeling, Dr. Page shows how variety in staffing produces organizational strength-- and bottom line results.  In his models, diverse groups of problem-solvers outperformed groups made up of similar individuals with high problem-solving ability.  The diverse groups got stuck less often that did the smart individuals, who tended to think similarly.

According to Dr. Page, different talents and perspectives, which he calls "tools," bring more and different ways of seeing a problem and result in faster/better ways of solving it.  Diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, diverse companies are more innovative.  Interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research, he says, and should be the route that business and the professions pursue.

So what does this have to do with lawyers?  Law departments that stretch across many countries are often diverse by necessity.  And by going global, many firms are diversifying by circumstance.  In both cases different cultural, personality and economic perspectives come into the mix.  While trying to preserve the benefits of diversity, these departments and firms are also confronted with the morass of confusion that many different people doing things differently can make.  Molding those differing perspectives into the "BigLaw" firm or department way of doing things--either purposefully, by circulating the administrative memo or lecturing the new recruits, or inadvertently, perhaps by unconsciously discouraging lawyers from ringing an alarm when they spot missteps, can leave you with unintended consequences. 

KPMG's program to test all US partners (see our KPMG Model Delivers Risk Management, Teamwork, Client Satisfaction and Diversity Too) and then use that information to balance various teams--marketing, client, industry and management, to name a few--is a shining example of the usefulness of diverse approaches to every type of issue facing professional services firms.  KPMG is affirmatively pursuing and integrating diversity in their business model to great benefit.

Finding the right balance to both capitalize on the benefits of diversity and to minimize the administrative and management fallout produced by those differences is a modern law firm's challenge.  There is every reason to believe that getting it right is worth the effort.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a report released October 1^st, Catalyst, a New York consultancy, found that Fortune 500 companies with at least three women on their boards strongly outperformed those companies with fewer or no women. Based on a study of four years of corporate results, the correlation was found to be so direct that the more women who serve on a board, the better the bottom line. 

The companies with the highest percentage of women on their boards had equity returns 53% higher, returns on sales 42% higher and returns on invested capital at least 66% higher than those companies with the least number of women board members. Higher returns kicked in once at least three women served on the corporation’s board, the study found, with companies having only three women board members raising each of those returns an average of 5% over corporations with fewer women.

Why would female board participation produce such concrete financial results? Various consultants and academics speculate that women are better able to understand the customer base, particularly of consumer goods companies, and that showcasing women on the board helps attract and retain women employees throughout the company. 

Another reason may well be women’s often strong collaboration skills, empowering them to better resolve conflict and move boards through the thorny discussions necessary to make and carry through critical decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

There is no substitute for face time, as people in my business are wont to insist. But maybe there is.

During an interview with Mark Chandler, General Counsel of Cisco, to discuss the evolving legal marketplace, see Leaving Behind the Medieval Model, he demonstrated for me Cisco's newest entry (competing with Hewlett-Packard, Polycom and Tandberg, among others) into the web conference market— a small meeting room that boasts an IP (Internet Protocol) phone, three broadcast-quality cameras, three ultra-sensitive mikes, three 60-inch plasma screens, a crescent-shaped table that seats six and soft back-lighting. The result, as one satisfied client related, is that "you can literally see and hear a pin drop a continent away."  The sensation is of simply being in a small conference room with well-lit colleagues across the table--I admit to the eerie feeling of being able to reach out and touch someone, only I couldn't. 

At $300,000+ for each of these pods (and it takes two, of course) and monthly maintenance costs in the thousands, it would require a lot of deferred traveling to pay for the luxury of not having to sit on tarmacs. Nonetheless these systems seem to be enjoying brisk demand, with prices down from $550,000+ two years ago and double digit increases in sales annually. 

There are a number of circumstances that might prompt law firms to take advantage of these technospheres. In light of how time-consuming air travel has become, the need for rapid decision-making and the globally far-flung nature of more and more law firms and their clients, they offer a reasonable and efficient tool in law firms' management and delivery arsenals.

But my interest in this product (in case you've been wondering why I, a techie manqué, am going on about this) relates to something one of the true techies touting this system remarked when I saw it. "The name of the game today is collaboration," he said, and went on to discuss the myriad tech tools now available that promote collaboration—web-conferencing, intranets, extranets, wikis, individual attorney blogs, etc.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the name of the game at many, if not most, law firms has not historically been collaboration, whether we are talking about firm management, practice group, committee or even client and document issues. Lawyers are notoriously independent and skeptical/untrusting of others. The impact of many firms' broad dispersal of offices and lawyers has not necessarily been to produce more of what wasn't much there in the first place. Compounded with the arrival almost daily of lateral lawyers from different work and culture environments, cities, and even countries, the tendency among lawyers towards isolation is often only magnified.

So here comes the possibility of virtual face time, whether you think you need it or not. While we can agree that what needs face time, and what that term means, is often subjective, the absolute necessity of it among lawyers, their staff and clients is indisputable. I concede that web conferencing still lacks a certain something—building a critical relationship, hiring and firing, and even congratulating might still best be done in person. Real person. Where a shoulder to cry on, a slap on the back or a firm handshake can make a difference.

But if a firm determines to include one of these technologies amongst its tools or toys, it should not forget to put introducing, acknowledging, appreciating, recapping, explaining, consolidating, networking, socializing, rewarding, giving feedback, even gossiping and complaining on the list of things they are used for. It is an efficient way to build rapport and community and the productivity associated with that cost assuredly drops to the bottom line faster than whatever productivity associated with paying for either lunches at everyone's desks or sitting on the tarmac does.

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

Behavioral science is not often invoked in the halls of law departments, but maybe it should be.  Two recent articles highlight the importance to a GC's success of understanding why people think and act as they do.

General counsel are in the position of having to reconcile two jobs: being both a business partner in the management of the company's business and the guardian of the company's integrity.  One aspect of their work requires creativity, risk-taking and far-sightedness.  The other requires careful scrutiny of every corporate action in the short and long term for potential regulatory, liability and just plain reputation pitfalls.  Achieving high productivity with high integrity might strain even Superman's talents.

An article in Corporate Counsel by Ben W. Heineman Jr, former GE senior vice president-general counsel, entitled "How GCs Can Avoid Being Caught in the Middle" recites some of the recent scandals that attest to how difficult that balancing act can be:  the fraudulent financial practices at Enron, the pretexting at Hewlett-Packard Corp, and the wave of options backdating.

Perhaps what chilled GCs to the bone most recently were the guilty pleas by Purdue Pharma L.P., its president, GC and former chief medical officer to misleading the public about the drug OxyContin's risk of addiction.  They have agreed to pay a total of $634.5 million in fines.  Rather than relaying focus group concern about potential for abuse, Purdue Pharma gave false information to its sales representatives that the drug was less addictive than other painkillers.

Heineman mentions a number of attributes that can help GCs successfully straddle their two roles.   Vis-a-vis the other corporate managers, the GC must have the ability to stand his/her ground on clear illegalities and to make sure he/she has enough time to assess those situations that are not clear cut.  And GCs must be able to take those stands in the pressure-filled environment of a board meeting where the CEO is likely to be a ferocious skeptic and many board members will side with the CEO.  See our July 18, 2007 entry on Promoting an Effective Board about the importance of personal attributes in good decision-making.

The Texas Lawyer article "It's All in Your Head:  Cognitive Theory Can Help GCs Lead Organizations to Better Decisions" by Michael Maslanka, a managing partner at Ford & Harrison in Dallas, contends that a GC's real power--the ability to influence decisions-- comes from understanding the way people think, which requires tapping into cognitive science.

Maslanka lists a number of biases that people in general and managers specifically can suffer from if they aren't on the alert: 

• The bias that there is only one cause when something bad happens
• The tendency to focus on conclusions and generalities instead of specifics
• Hardwiring that makes it easy to believe accusations and hard to disbelieve them
•  A confirmation bias, which only admits facts that support our beliefs (and further reinforces our belief bias)
• Overreliance on what is first heard
• Resistance to change that can only be overcome with practice, practice, practice

Maslanka encourages GCs to be open to all possibilities and to question rather than dictate.  Heineman also points out the importance of maintaining within the law department a culture that welcomes, even requires, lawyers to raise concerns about financial, legal, ethical or reputational issues.  We refer to this as a "culture of dissent"-- one that invites concerns, follows up on them and does not punish anyone for raising them, but rather praises them.  See our March 16, 2007 entry on the article Handling Conflict and Dissent in Law Practice (and Life).

While it may not be mind reading, being cognitively aware of your own personal attributes and biases, as well as others', can help steer you toward that Superman performance to which all GCs aspire.

 

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

Oddly enough, where it is most needed, Boards and other management groups may be the last frontier for achieving enhanced performance management. 

Historically, the perceived advantages of relying on a managing group, instead of one individual, include access to the group's collective wisdom –"several heads are better than one"–as well as the ability to spread an increasing management workload over a number of people. 

A recent Center for Creative Leadership study identified an additional advantage. Effective management these days requires the resources of several people, rather than the lone hero, in order to meet the global challenges of collaboratively connecting across boundaries of all kinds—geography, language, culture and expertise.

Avoiding "Extreme" Group Decision-Making

Yet there is a well-documented propensity for groups to drift toward "extreme" decisions, that is, a committee often makes a decision that none of the individual members of the committee, acting alone, would make. These group decisions can be extreme by being either extremely risky or extremely conservative, and you see lone Directors routinely disavowing their cohorts’ actions after the fact. There seem to be a number of reasons for this tendency:          

Diffusion of Responsibility. An individual's part in a group's decision evidently weighs less heavily on him/her than an individual decision would, the implication being that not as thorough an evaluation of the issues is made when the decision is attributed to the group.

Ignoring the Lone Voice. Often groups do not properly take into account the most relevant expertise in the room.   Most small groups tend to make decisions based on the information all members share about a topic, overlooking important facts that one or several people bring. Although management committees are usually looking for creative, out-of-the-box strategies, a solitary opinion is often taken lightly or ignored in the flow of debate within the group.

Social Pressure. The more bonded the group, the more committed they are likely to be to reaching a decision, particularly one that pleases most of the members, even if a decision should be delayed or a less pleasing one would in fact be best. 

Competition. When committee members agree on the parameters of an issue, individuals may try to one-up each other by suggesting more and more extreme solutions, then promoting their solution as the best.

Stress. Groups under pressure act very much like individuals under stress, only more so. They often procrastinate, calling for further information, or become committed to bad decisions primarily to protect themselves and each other against criticism. This effect may account for the popular notion that committees tend to "split the baby," resulting in a less controversial solution that does not in fact work very well.

Seeing What Others Say

The impact of psychological factors on group decision making may go even further, to actually alter each person’s perceptions. A study using advanced brain-scanning technology shows that, in effect, group members often in fact see what the group tells them they see. In an exercise involving mentally rotating images of three-dimensional objects to determine if the objects were the same or different, subjects were assured of an incorrect conclusion by confederates and then agreed with those wrong answers 41% of the time. The brain activity of those who went along with the group was markedly different from those who took independent positions. When subjects concurred with wrong answers, activity increased in the area of the brain devoted to spatial awareness, meaning that their actual perceptions were being influenced. Those who made independent judgments showed activity in the region of the brain associated with conflict management, signifying an emotional toll for going against the group's perception.

Based on the results of this study, one of the potential major advantages of a group decision—"several heads are better than one"—can disappear if the group successfully, even if unintentionally, co-opts individual insights. The most problematic aspect of these results is that not only does the group lose the "lone voices," but also the lone voices lose their very awareness of their differing perspectives. The change in their perception makes them incapable of raising their idiosyncratic flags.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Should lawyers “do the right thing” in addition to “being right”?  

A favorite cartoon depicts two lawyers at a desk evidently discussing strategy. One lawyer says to the other: “Is it right?… Is it fair?  Get a grip, Carlton—we’re a law firm!”

Integrity

In an interesting study issued recently, the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence found that financial advisors who demonstrated high levels of “moral and emotional competency” nearly doubled the S&P 500 return on their client portfolios in the years 2001 through 2004, delivering an average return of 25%. 

Of the various attributes studied, integrity had the single strongest impact on client returns. “Results showed that Integrity was the key behavioral competency which predicted the most positive returns for clients." 

Integrity was defined as acting consistently with what one says is important, in other words “walking the talk.”  An example was an advisor willing to give up a lucrative client rather than compromise his/her principles, such as ultimately recommending that a client seek advice from another advisor because the advisor could not in good conscience implement a plan believed to put the client at significant financial risk.

Ethics

In the process of updating his 1996 book The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing by Attorneys, William George Ross determined that lawyers in 2007 are significantly more likely than a decade ago to pad their bills with unnecessary hours or bill two clients for the same time. Almost 55% (up from 40%) of associates and partners surveyed report performing unnecessary work, and 35% (up from 23%) say they bill two clients for the same time. The number of lawyers who believe double billing is ethical also rose from 35% in 1996 to 48%, and more than two-thirds of lawyers say they have specific knowledge of bill-padding by others.   

Morals

In a May 2, 2007 Law.com article entitled “From Moral Partners to a Moral Firm”, Gregory S. Gallopoulos, the managing partner of Jenner & Block, suggests that the integrated enterprise model that many successful law firms are adopting now, in which strategy and vision belong to the entity as a whole rather than to individual partners, risks producing a vacuum in the area of firm morals. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir, Esq., Senior Consultant at Robin Rolfe Resources, was featured as a speaker at a conference on Risk Management for the Modern Law Firm, sponsored by ARK Group. The conference was held in Chicago on April 17 and 18, 2007. 

Muir's presentation was on the risks that arise in managing a law firm's greatest asset: its people. She pointed out the ways in which lawyers are different from all other professionals, the challenges and risks that those differences pose to management, and how to use those differences to make good lawyers better. 

Participants raved:

• "Innovative, new information!"
• "Excellent, new material of real value.  I would love even more detail and time on this topic."
• "Great presentation!" 
• "Great speaker!  Knowledgeable and forward thinking."

ARK Group also lauded Muir's participation: "Your involvement was pivotal to the success of the program… and brought a fresh perspective to the agenda."  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks