Articles Posted in Talent

The topic is enormous, but I have pulled together 16 posts from this blog that inform us a bit about intelligence.

Should general counsel try to hire the smartest lawyers they can find? Intellectual elitists regard a fine mind to be the most important determinant of success (See my post of Jan. 1, 2006: IQ tests predict work performance ten times better than do personality tests; Jan. 14, 2007: IQ as a predictor of job performance; Aug. 28, 2008: hedge fund managers and SAT scores of alma maters; and May 13, 2005: competency, IQ, personality, and emotional intelligence.).

People suggest that it may even be possible to increase one’s IQ (See my post of Jan. 15, 2006: how to increase IQ; Nov. 6, 2007: the Flynn effect of rising IQs; and June 12, 2005: ten years to become an expert.). Others argue that IQ is primarily determined by inherited genes (See my post of Feb. 1, 2007 #3: height and intelligence.).

A few large law departments have an internal recruiter dedicated to its needs, ideally one who is familiar with the legal market. They follow up on referrals by in-house lawyers (still the most effective source of hiring good people) and unsolicited resumes. In addition, in a big law department they are aware of everyone interviewing and are able to consider candidates for more than one role. The internal recruiter arranges interviews and collects the evaluations afterwards.

Aside from close familiarity with the law department and the company’s Human Resources practices, an internal recruiter can save money as compared to using executive search firms. In other respects, the internal person and the recruiter serve different needs (See my post of March 26, 2005: executive search firms possibly inflate compensation metrics; Dec. 4, 2005: press search firms to present minority candidates; Feb. 19, 2006: search firms don’t favor internal candidates; June 27, 2006: 5% of hires come through search firms; July 5, 2006: executive search firms; March 17, 2007: Motorola and publicity for an open spot; March 20, 2007 #3: search firms; March 26, 2007: data on frequency of placements; May 3, 2007: HR resistance to use of headhunters; May 27, 2007: criticisms of recruiters; May 28, 2007: how to respond if a headhunter calls; May 28, 2007: recruitment awards offered by law departments; and Dec. 3, 2007 #1: executive search placements.).

An earlier metapost pulled together some thoughts on contract lawyers (See my post of July 17, 2008: contract lawyers with 12 references.). Also important are temporary lawyers (See my post of Aug. 5, 2005: temporary vs. contract lawyers; and April 9, 2006: differences between contract lawyers hired on their own while temporary lawyers are with agency.).

Economics, flexibility, and competencies justify the use of temporary lawyers (See my post of Jan. 10, 2006: some cost comparisons; March 1, 2008: temp labor costs turn out higher than contracts say; March 11, 2007: contract lawyers at law firms; and May 21, 2006: eight methods to control legal costs;

Dec. 17, 2007: temporary and contract lawyers; July 14, 2005: temporary staffing arrangements; and Nov. 26, 2006: contract lawyers and references cited.). I think we will see even more use of temporary lawyers by law departments.

Part of being a commended leader is being perceived as a role model. For all general counsel, those around you in the legal department as well others who interact with you aspire to be like you (See my post of March 21, 2006: Mike Dillon going without an office; June 10, 21007: Human Capital and leadership practices; and Oct. 30, 2006: GC constantly on stage.).

The words “role model” sound dry, depersonalized. “Inspiring” sounds messianic. “Leader” has more verve, more inspiration. The term “hero,” to be sure, falls far beyond what anyone would say of a general counsel, although an Attorney General who resigns rather than carry out what he perceives to be a wrongful dismissal may come close.

Setting aside the vocabulary of approbation, it is one of the expectations of a general counsel that he or she embody admirable behavior. Whether they like it or not, whether they appreciate its importance or not, general counsel are role models.

The suggestions for how to improve interviews of job applicants come from Money, Vol. 37, Sept. 2008 at 52. I have added two more at the end.

1. Send candidates ahead of time a profile of the company and the law department.

2. Allow enough time for the interview discussion to proceed with relaxation, “at least 30 minutes but no longer than 45 minutes with each candidate.”

Should a manager in a law department rely on Myers-Briggs descriptions of staff? Objections to the widely-used personality assessment, as stated and rebutted in an article in Talent Mgt., May 2007 at 23, are fourfold. (1) “The tool isn’t scientifically sound,” yet it was revised carefully in 1998. (2) “The instrument stereotypes people” yet it is intended as a description, not a prediction. (3) “There isn’t any such thing as a personality type,” yet the tool is primarily designed to show differences in how people perceive and judge information. (4) “Everybody’s done it, and there isn’t anything new,” yet a skilled analyst can provide useful insights to someone who takes the MBTI.

The article supports Myers-Briggs not for selection of hires but afterwards, for retention, development and succession planning (See my post of April 18, 2005: lawyers’ MBIT scores compared to those of the general population; Aug. 21, 2005: lawyers as introverts; and Oct. 21, 2005: more than amusement at retreats.).

Typical methods for communication within a legal department include group e-mail lists, intranet sites, bulletin boards, staff meetings, town hall meetings, and periodic conferences or retreats. Other ways to communicate are less usual (See my post of March 25, 2008: hypersonic sound.). Here are three.

Newsletters, delivered in hard copy or electronically. I worked with an insurance company that sent around monthly newsletters and a pharmaceutical company that distributed them by email (See my post of Sept. 4, 2006: general comments on purpose of newsletter; March 13, 2007: examples from BMO and Lucent; and Sept. 22, 2006: one way a law department markets its services.).

Statements of principals. The general counsel of Westinghouse and Reebok used this medium, that give specificity to mission statements (See my post of March 4, 2007: retrospective on “Reebok Rules”.).

Frank Furedi, Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone: Confronting 21st Century Philistinism (Continuum 2004) at 38-41, discusses the differences between professionals and intellectuals. “The mental work of the professional is focused on the provision of services, not the promotion of ideas.” Ideas become instrumental, means to a solution, rather than values in their own rights.

Furedi writes that “Activities such as offering a critique of the status quo, acting as the conscience of society, or pursuing the truth regardless of the consequences are not what the job of a professional is all about.” Intellectuals embrace autonomy, divergent thinking, and the development of ideas as an ultimate value. Professionals don’t rock the boat, don’t stray outside accepted roles, strive to keep themselves marketable, and do what they can to fit into commerce. More managerial or technocratic, the professional lawyer is not an intellectual.

This blog has been around and around on job rotations in law departments. A trio of law departments have been cited for their specific practices (See my post of Feb. 16, 2007: Philips and recruitment; April 13, 2006: rotations from specialist positions to generalists at Philips; and Dec. 28, 2006: Diageo and job swaps.).

Other posts comment on a range of points regarding job rotations (See my post of April 8, 2005: through head of administration for the department; Aug. 4, 2007: GCs who rotate out of legal for a period of time; April 27, 2007: knowledge of a foreign language helps; and Aug. 26, 2007: rotations as experiential learning.).

I reviewed the various components of compensation earlier but realized that I have additional posts on general counsel, attorneys, paralegals, and other levels (See my post of Aug. 21, 2008: compensation components with 19 references; and March 15, 2005: comp surveys depend on levels, but some law departments don’t match well to those levels.).

Most of the entries report on data about the compensation of the general counsel, since a fair amount of that information is public (See my post of Feb. 1, 2006: general counsel compensation in Texas companies matched against AMLAW 200 partner compensation; June 15, 2005: Asian general counsel salaries; Oct. 2, 2006: extrapolating GC compensation from that of the top five compensated executives; May 24, 2007: big companies pay their general counsel more, but the general counsel are probably more experienced; and Sept. 5, 2007: tax consequences of million-dollar-plus salaries.). Many posts refer to general counsel pay (See my post of March 22, 2006 about GC compensation and collected references; Aug. 9, 2008: GCs handsomely compensated; and Aug. 9, 2008: other observations on GC compensation.).

Compensation of the rest of the lawyers in-house have attracted some posts (See my post of March 30, 2006: corporate lawyer compensation and management issues in New Zealand; Dec. 11, 2006: some New Jersey salary data; April 8, 2007: differences in compensation of highly-paid practice areas; May 10, 2006: “Pay me less but work me less” – conflicting data; and Dec. 10, 2007: low paid lawyers at the world’s richest philanthropy.).