Articles Posted in Talent

Yesterday (See my post of Aug. 20, 2009: CPR statement.), I wrote that I suspected that general counsel have available to them to sign a statement in support of pro bono. That is indeed the case.

Esther Lardent, the long-time President & CEO of the Pro Bono Institute, promptly wrote to answer my speculation. “Corporate Pro Bono, a joint initiative of my organization, the Pro Bono Institute, and ACC, is working with hundreds of legal departments to create and enhance pro bono programs. We have established and registered the Corporate Pro Bono Challenge, which is a voluntary, aspirational, pro bono goal for legal departments. While the number of departments signed on is small relative to CPR’s statement, pro bono is a newer concept and the Challenge requires reporting and contains an ambitious metric – participation by at least half of the department’s legal staff.”

If readers would like to join or find out more information, please go to the website of the Institute (See my post of Aug. 24, 2008: pro bono programs of law departments with 12 references.).

In the words of Talent mgt., July 2009 at 26, “There are four steps to the performance mapping process. First, develop performance maps. Second, execute real-time evaluation with star performers. Third, document skills tables for key competencies. And finally, talent managers must apply key competencies to their organizations talent management strategies.”

As I understand these steps, a performance map identifies how each role within a department directly affects the success of the company. “Performance maps usually focus on four standard categories: financial objectives, business process improvement objectives, customer satisfaction objectives and employee satisfaction objectives.” These objectives cascade from the company level to the law department level and then to the individual employee role. This first step helps employees identify key competencies that they need to master.

Second, talent managers should speak with standout performers and understand how their abilities have made them successful in their roles. The idea is to replicate strong practices (See my post of July 29, 2007: high potentials with 10 references.).

Three varieties of “capitals,” as they pertain to legal departments, have appeared on this blog: human capital, social capital and organizational capital.

Human capital has the most accumulation. I devote an entire category to Talent Management but there have also been several references on this blog to the specific term (See my post of May 10, 2006: portfolio view of human capital; May 11, 2007: the first 9 practices; May 28, 2007: final 14 practices; June 10, 2007: leadership; June 11, 2007: employee engagement; June 14, 2007: knowledge accessibility; June 30, 2007: sixth in a series on human capital initiatives; July 29, 2007: human capital management; and March 20, 2008: Human Capital Theory in economics.). Human capital includes personal abilities within law departments that are not intellectual. Humor, multilingual abilities, diversity, emotional intelligence, and doggedness are examples. It’s what humans bring to the table from their backgrounds, personality styles, and genetics.

A subset of human capital is knowledge capital (sometimes referred to as intellectual capital) (See my post of June 25, 2007: “the intelligence, training, mental discipline and experience of the lawyers and others in the department”.).

What influences satisfaction levels among members of a legal department are numerous. To reel off some of them, they include amenities, client appreciation, the culture of the department, diversity, emotional intelligence, facilities, health, leadership, pro bono, quality of work, vacations, values, work-life balance, and workload? For many of these topics I have accumulated metaposts. The truth is, I am not sure where to draw the line about what to include in this post on employee satisfaction.

To start my effort to come to grips with this huge topic, I searched my posts to date for the term “employee satisfaction”: (See my post of March 23, 2007: open plan seating bothers employees; Jan. 19, 2008: use an online bulletin-board system; Aug. 26, 2006 #2: utility function of economists; March 8, 2006: happiness set point; Dec. 22, 2005: hedonic treadmills; April 1, 2005 employee morale and satisfaction; April 3, 2005 employee morale and satisfaction; April 8, 2005: response rates to employee satisfaction surveys; May 1, 2005: employee satisfaction surveys are more common than morale surveys; Feb. 19, 2007: Job Diagnostic Survey; and Jan. 10, 2008: employee engagement.).

Two metaposts cover directly related topics: happiness and morale (See my post of June 20, 2007: happiness with 10 references; and July 13, 2008: morale with 15 references.).

I read recently that solid thinkers should never ignore the obvious. In that vein, here is an obvious observation about governance in law departments as it is affected by the size of the department.

The smaller the law department, the more voice every lawyer has. Conversely, the bigger the department, the harder it is for lawyers to feel engaged, part of the whole function, and collegial with the entire group. Peter Leeson, The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates (Princeton Univ. 2009) at 74, prompted this observation as he discusses “decision-making costs.”

Monsanto’s legal department “involves itself in succession issues for legal teams at their preferred providers,” according to Corp. Counsel, Vol. 16, June 2009 at 65. I have previously written (See my post of Jan. 13, 2008: interventions that go to far.) that it is over-reaching for a general counsel to evaluate the performance and influence the promotion of individual law-firm lawyers (See my post of Nov. 15, 2005: performance evaluations of law firms.). And I have yet to hear of a law department that lets its law firm partners significantly evaluate the performance of inside lawyers.

But I urge you, if you are a major client of a firm, to have at least veto power over the selection of a relationship partner (See my post of July 26, 2008: relationship partners with 8 references.). That evaluation extends more broadly than the partner’s abilities as a lawyer.

A thoughtful article in MIT Sloan Mgt. Rev., Vol. 50, Summer 2009 at 44, should unnerve newly appointed general counsel. Research shows that “subordinates’ expectations of the boss measured in the first five days of their relationship were strong predictors of subordinate assessments of the quality of their working relationship measured two weeks, six weeks and six months later.” (emphasis in original)

The article explains how good bosses get mislabeled and how perceptions form rapidly around their behavior. It also gives advice for how to combat premature misimpressions and snap judgments (See my post of Sept. 7, 2008: staff watch the general counsel like hawks.).

Supporting the prolific IP department of IBM is a corps of nearly 100 retired IBM lawyers who practice as freelancers. This arrangement appears in Corp. Counsel, Vol. 16, June 2009 at 77. That army of former in-housers made me wonder whether IBM treats their costs as external counsel or as internal. I assume external, but the line blurs.

IBM’s $103.6 billion in revenue supports a reported 580 lawyers – 5.6 lawyers per billion. If you count two-thirds of the retired IP lawyers who pitch in, on the assumption that many of them work part-time, that would add about 65 lawyers, driving the lawyers per billion up to 6.2.

IBM likes how the arrangement has worked out and wants to expand it to other areas, such as contracts. Other legal departments can emulate the practice: allow retired lawyers to continue working as legal consultants (See my post of Jan. 30, 2006: Purdue hired 18 former employees and trained them to do work that junior lawyers and paralegals normally handle.).

“Professional development is a fusion of career planning and development – for yourself – and continuing education and training in both the law and your company’s business – for the benefit of your client.” This distinction comes from GC Mid-Atlantic, March 2008 at 14.

The article makes clear that every in-house attorney is responsible for planning her career. To put a fine point on it, everyone needs to think about how to make the most of a position and whether to change jobs. A second point of the article is each lawyer has to take control of his own professional development. Even with neither a promotion nor a new position, a lawyer can develop skills. That’s not the responsibility of the law department or the company.

In this economy, while jobs are precarious, it is even more pressing to take control of your own career, job satisfaction, and prospects.

Tell me your tale of a general counsel showing admirable leadership!

Readers would like to hear about examples of general counsel who demonstrated admirable leadership or management. If you email me or call me [973.568.9110] with an example, I will compile them and comment on them – without any attribution.

Later, I will ask readers for submissions on examples of poor leadership.