Articles Posted in Talent

“Heck, every time we assign someone to their work longer term, they hire them out of the firm to work in the department, usually just at the point when they begin to actually contribute to the firm’s overall profitability.” This quote, presumably from a law firm managing partner, comes from the ACC Docket, Vol. 26, Oct. 2008, at Value Challenge 6. This peeved partner criticizes clients who hire the firm’s associates, especially if the young lawyers have just started to enrich the partners.

Blame for this situation, if there is any, rests with the partners. If associates like their jobs and prospects, they decline offers from law departments. And if the economic model of law firms causes them to lose money on associates for several years, that’s not the problem of law departments. Associates have to go somewhere, since most won’t make partner, and it is better that they go to a law department than to a competitor firm. The bonds tighten between the firm and the company. Further, law firms aren’t reluctant to poach mid-level associates from other law firms.

Nearly all law departments are staffed so leanly that little time exists for their busy lawyers to train backups. Lawyers fill specific roles, their plates are full, and there is not time to cross train someone just in case (See my post of June 24, 2007: intractable management problem of career paths; Sept. 1, 2008: learning methods with 12 references.); and May 21, 2008: how generalists can learn from specialists.).

It sounds good in theory to cross-train, but the demands of real life intrude too frequently and squash the good intentions. For that reason, general counsel can fall back on several partial substitutes for training someone to backfill a position.

One method is to rotate lawyers among positions (See my post of Aug. 26, 2007: rotations as experiential learning.). Another method takes a process view. The more a law department systematizes its processes, the easier it is for someone to step in and take over for a departed lawyer (See my post of June 6, 2008: standard, routine and systematized services.). Third, to the degree a law department sets up knowledge management resources, the better it can transition workload to someone new in a role. The more communication there is within a law department, furthermore, the closer it comes to cross training for the reason that some of the know-how is available and familiar. Typical methods for substantive communication within a legal department include group e-mail lists, intranet sites, bulletin boards, staff meetings, and periodic conferences or call-ins.

Turnover diminishes a department’s current capability, bench strength, and succession planning. When a good performer leaves, the loss blasts a hole in institutional knowledge, expertise and collegiality (See my post of May 14, 2005: turnover losses; June 15, 2005: costs to law departments of turnover; and May 5, 2008: turnover rises after layoffs.).

Compounding the losses caused by departures, it takes time and money to fill a vacated spot. General counsel face difficulties hiring lawyers to replace those who leave because there are hiring freezes, compensation limits, a small supply of suitable talent, or HR restrictions (See my post of May 18, 2007: remote law departments have small talent pools nearby; Dec. 3, 2007 #1: executive search placements; March 17, 2007: Motorola and publicity for an open spot; July 5, 2006: executive search firms; and March 26, 2005: executive search firms possibly inflate compensation data.).

Some law departments fill holes temporarily with contract lawyers or secondees (See my posts of March 26, 2007: sources of new hires and the time it takes to bring them on.). Cross-training helps tide over a law department until reinforcements arrive (See my post of Oct. 19, 2008: cross-training.).

To some observers, motivation has four commonly measured workplace indicators: engagement, satisfaction, commitment, and intention to quit. These came from a recent issue of Talent Management and all apply to some degree to law departments.

“Engagement represents the energy, effort, and initiative employees bring to their jobs” (See my post of July 13, 2008: Part IV of engagement.)

“Satisfaction reflects the extent to which they feel that the company meets their expectations at work and satisfies its implicit and explicit contracts with them.” A sense of quid pro quo engenders satisfaction.

The National Association of Women Lawyers will host the Fourth Annual General Counsel Institute in early November. The topics to be discussed include several on law department management.

NAWL is not alone in its attention to women who practice law in corporate settings. Other groups for in-house women lawyers include the Women’s Law Empowerment Forum (See my post of May 13, 2007: Women’s Law Empowerment Forum.), Corporate Counsel Women of Color (See my post of Oct. 22, 2006: Corporate Counsel Women of Color.), the General Counsel Network, part of the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives (See my post of Oct. 22, 2006: Women of Color.), Women’s Law School Coalition (See my post of Nov. 30, 2007: law school women.), and Women in E-Discovery (See my post of Jan. 28, 2008: WiE.)

In the next few years, law departments in the United States will have as many women lawyers as men lawyers (See my post of March 16, 2008 #3: 40% are women currently.).

General counsel – indeed all managers, one hopes – want capable, ambitious people to report to them and a measure of competitiveness among them. Even so, they disapprove if competitive drives by those reports threaten the manager’s position (See my post of Jan. 18, 2007: general counsel fear usurpation; and April 30, 2006: reluctance of some to mentor potential challengers.). They mightily disapprove if jockeying for position and recognition throws monkey wrenches into team effectiveness (See my post of Oct. 10, 2005: competition among direct reports; and April 16, 2007: passed-over lawyers.).

Competition between lawyers can crop up everywhere in a law department (See my post of June 6, 2008: differences between non-cooperation, competition, conflict, and sabotage; Aug. 5, 2005: competition over who should manage business-unit litigation; Dec. 10, 2005: positional goods; June 24, 2007: career path quagmire; March 16, 2008: a game theoretic view of competition between lawyers; April 20, 2008: gender differences; April 22, 2008: competition through mind-enhancing drugs; May 29, 2008: “competitive arousal” situations; Dec. 23, 2005: racehorses in paddocks; and Feb. 28, 2006: the desirability of an officer title.).

Unhealthy competition can degenerate into withholding information or resources that would help someone else do better (See my post of Jan. 17, 2006: passive-aggressive behavior; and Feb. 9, 2008: silos that keep to themselves.). Unbridled competition unleashes open conflict (See my post of May 2, 2007: political fights stress the newly promoted; Jan. 20, 2007: task and relationship conflicts; and June 5, 2007: virulent politics.). Sabotage takes competition to a deliberately destructive level (See my post of Oct. 24, 2006 on rumors; and April 13, 2007 #4 on gossip.).

A thoughtful book, Susan Neiman’s Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grownup Idealists (Harcourt 2008), argues that the values of the Enlightenment thinkers – Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Kant and others in roughly the 18th century – still stand us in good stead. She condenses them into the importance of happiness and the right to enjoy it; the primacy of reason; reverence for nature; and hope for a better world.

Enlightenment thinkers claimed that the human capacity to reason could ensure steady progress. Science was its embodiment. Neiman contrasts those Enlightenment beliefs to views of humans as flawed, overpowered by animal passions, religious to the core, and locked into a spiral down.

A general counsel who practices and promotes Enlightenment values would try to raise employee morale. Careful thinking would be exalted and tools provided to enable it. Reverence – in a secular sense – might come from admiring the legal system through pro bono activities. A belief in progress and hope for betterment of the law department and its contributions would be manifest.

A vital goal for most law-department retreats is to have the lawyers get to know each other better. Familiarity helps build trust and teamwork. One technique to help accomplish that goal, as well as to start the retreat off in an upbeat way, is to begin with an enjoyable ice-breaker.

One law department kicked off its conference by having each person tell two truths and a lie about themselves. From my experience at nearly thirty law-department conferences, I know that self-revelation embarrasses some people. That kind of ice breaker chills their hearts. A safer alternative is to have the leadership team give some personal history that the broader group may not know and the crowd has to guess which team member the fun fact applies to.

Another legal team used a jeopardy-style game that teaches the participants interesting things about the company. I can imagine a variation that turns facts about the law department and its history into jeopardy questions.

If you believe that legal staff make all the difference in the effectiveness of a law department, you may be interested in recent research into what handicaps effective development of people. Seven obstacles from The McKinsey Quarterly, 2008 No. 1 at 51, and quoted below are based on interviews of 98 business and human-resource leaders at 46 organizations. The seven are below, as written and in the same order, with some references within this blog.

1. Senior managers don’t spend enough high-quality time on talent management (See my post of July 29, 2007: high potentials with 10 references.).

2. Organization is “siloed” and does not encourage constructive collaboration, sharing of resources (See my post of Aug. 28, 2008: rotations for lawyers with 7 references.).