Articles Posted in Talent

Not that much hiring is underway during these troubled times, and not that many general counsel want to devote time to potential hires, but an article in talent mgt., Dec. 2008 at 50, discusses attention to “passive job seekers.” “[R]esearch found 62 percent of best-in-class organizations are focused on creating or improving a data repository of desirable active and passive job candidates.” Aberdeen Group conducted the research and issued a report on it in July 2008.

As I understand the article, make an effort to spot talented lawyers in firms or other departments who might someday fill one of your spots, and woo them just a little. The lawyers you target may not be looking – hence, they are passive job seekers – but someday their needs and yours may coincide.

The second step, implicit in the first one, is to keep a database of resumes received. You might go further and code some of the resumes as having a higher potential for meeting your needs than others.

The autobiography of Borealis AG’s law department and its spunky general counsel, Ruth Steinholtz, appears in the ACC Docket, Vol. 26, Nov. 2008 at 38. Steinholtz and the coach/consultant she retained embraced wholeheartedly personal and team development activities. One of the goals was team effectiveness and a tool to get there was a online diagnostic assessment.

“As part of the process, an online team system diagnostic tool was used, which highlights 14 key elements of high performing teams. Seven of these related to the productivity of the team. The other seven relate to the essential interpersonal elements that need developing.” For example, trust, respect and camaraderie are critical to high performance teams.

My first reaction was that 14 things to focus on goes far beyond what ordinary mortals can comprehend and attend to. My second reaction was that the touchy-feely side of all this stands out. Maybe that is because I am not a warm & fuzzy type of person (See my post of Jan. 9, 2009: close-kit family.).

Several posts have commented on the emotional odyssey of Borealis AG’s law department and its deeply-committed general counsel, Ruth Steinholtz, which appears in the ACC Docket, Vol. 26, Nov. 2008 at 38. A small part of her many-pronged approach to departmental effectiveness appears at the end as Steinholtz summarizes the steps she took: “Help them get to know each other as individuals beyond their roles.”

Some people in law departments want to feel part of a family, a group of friends that shares ups and downs, personal achievements and worries, secrets and aspirations. Some people, however, shy away from what they perceive as invasions of privacy, unwelcome personal disclosures, and sloppy emotionalism. It’s a job, not a group therapy session.

There is no best practice here. There is no right balance of intimacy and professionalism, of harmony and productivity. Especially as law departments grow and spread out, a sense of personal involvement and trust becomes harder to sustain.

“Speaking very generally, private practice lawyers tend to move firms frequently, while their in-house counterparts stay put.” Sapna Bedi FitzGerald, chair of the Commerce & Industry Group and head of legal at LSL Property Services plc made this remark and believes that the lack of movement from job to job among many in-house lawyers helps create “salary stagnation” compared to partners in private practice. The quote comes from Corp. Counsel, Vol.16, Jan. 2008, at 57, which cites compensation data from Incomes Data Services Ltd.

Fitzgerald is probably wrong on both counts, mobility and compensation. I doubt that law firm partners change firms any more frequently than do experienced in-house lawyers. Even if they do, it is their eventual book of business that sets their draw, not some salary-based raise they negotiate. I doubt also that the average income of private practice lawyers (even several years out of law school, to match the most junior in-house counsel) in the U.S. exceeds the average cash compensation of private industry lawyers. Fitzgerald is reacting to the headline pay packets of partners at big firms but forgets the tens of thousands of lawyers who barely get by.

Corp. Counsel, Vol.16, Jan. 2008, at 57, which cites compensation data from Incomes Data Services Ltd. Based on data from 83 organizations (more than 900 in-house lawyers) the average base pay for a U.K. head of legal is now roughly $200,000, while the average salary for a deputy general counsel is about $135,000. The article mentions bonuses of a third or so of base.

The contrast to US pay levels in-house is striking. InsideCounsel’s January issue has data from Jonathan Bellis, the comp specialist at Thomson/Hildebrandt. His survey for pay levels through about March 2008 found the following median figures for three titles in large law departments. The first figure is the base median and the second figure is the total compensation median.

Chief Legal Officer: $450,000 $1,502,057;

No one knows the frequency with which general counsel, or lawyers who report to them, avail themselves of executive coaches. My impression is that most general counsel in large companies can retain a personal coach with no one thinking twice about it. Indeed, some companies have a coach on call for the executive team (See my post of July 9, 2007: coaching with 8 references; Aug. 10, 2007: personality disorders among general counsel; Jan. 8, 2008: minimize career-progression angst; and March 25, 2008: 360-degree assessments and coach.).

The Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 87, Jan. 2009 at 92, tells us that coaches are no longer most often hired to “usher toxic leaders out the door.” No, in this humane age, coaches most often ply their trade to “develop high potentials or facilitate transition” (48% of the 140 leading coaches who responded to a survey selected this reason). The next two most common reasons why a coach is hired is to “act as a sounding board” (26% of the selections), or to “address derailing behavior.” (Love that phrase, training against derailing, all aboard!)

Actually, Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 87, Jan. 2009 at 56, says that these are traps that befall managers who take on new leadership roles and go after “quick wins.” The managerial mistakes, however, sound all too familiar in law departments. Among the newly-promoted senior managers studied by the authors, between 10 and 15 percent of them exhibited one or more of these pernicious traits.

“Focuses too heavily on the details”

“Reacts negatively to criticism” (See my post of Jan. 4, 2009: general counsel suppress bad news.).

In July 2008 BAE Systems’ general counsel chose a law firm partner to head its “Dispute Resolution and Risk Management” group. According to Corp. Counsel, Vol. 15, Dec. 2008 at 96, this is the title of the group. I have no quarrel with “dispute resolution,” because that term – broader than litigation management – more comprehensively covers efforts to forestall lawsuits and to deal expeditiously with pre-litigation claims.

I have a major bone to pick with “risk management.” Risk management, whatever that is, is much bigger than legal risks (See my post of March 23, 2008: risk management with 18 references.). So why charge some lawyer with that massive responsibility? It is a title too far.

We admire law departments that describe the attributes of leadership. After all, doing so helps institutionalize the behaviors and values expected of leaders and introduces common terminology. Problems exist, however, with leadership competency programs, as outlined in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 86, Dec. 2008 at 31.

The authors lay out four misgivings that general counsel should take to heart. Training programs built on leadership competency models teach participants how to manage within the existing organization, less to imagine a different and better organization. Training tends to emphasize formal structures at the expense of informal ones. Third, leadership competency models “condition managers to minimize uncertainty and mitigate risk.” A fourth worry is that the employees picked for leadership potential “narrows to those who most closely resemble their peers and bosses,” which squeezes out non-conforming views and styles.

Leadership in law departments is too important to compress, shape and circumscribe (See my post of June 11, 2008: leadership with 32 references.).

An entire page in the American Lawyer commands a hefty tab, but there it is on page 12” “The Chevron Law Function is pleased to present the first annual William T. Coleman Award to José “Jay” Layug.” (I think that William T. Coleman was the fourth United States Secretary of Transportation, serving from March 7, 1975 to January 20, 1977, and the second African American to serve in the Cabinet.)

Below the smiling picture of Mr. Layug is an explanation of the award and a description of his “service to the legal profession beyond his or her Chevron-related responsibilities.”

Mr. Layug “serves as an unpaid adjunct professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law, regularly delivers lectures to government and non-government lawyers, and has been a tireless provider of pro bono representation for a number of indigent groups in the Philippines.”