Articles Posted in Talent

What are the turnover rates in law departments when the new general counsel is promoted from within as compared to arrives from without? I have not seen data on departures of direct reports within the first year or 18 months of the new general counsel, but my hypothesis is that significantly more senior lawyers leave departments that bring in an outside general counsel (See my post of May 1, 2005: white knight appointments.). A lawyer elevated from within the department to be general counsel knows his or her former peers and, of course, is known by them. A stranger has no personal ties.

Often the newcomers want to hire people in key positions who are known to them and completely loyal to them (See my post of April 16, 2006: when a general counsel is promoted from within; Aug. 8, 2006: social distance; and March 26, 2005: internal vs. external successors.).

Various corporate upheavals, when they reach the headlines, may draw headhunters who try to lure away the law department’s best lawyers. Even general counsel who have tried hard to retain their talent can find themselves overtaken by these corporate events.

Layoffs and downsizings (See my posts of May 5, 2008: aftershocks of layoffs; and Nov. 20, 2005: Reuters legal team slashed by 20 percent.). Once reductions in force leak out, the good employees who remain are vulnerable to cherry picking.

Mergers (See my posts of May 10, 2007: Clayton Holdings; Sept.13, 2005: Honeywell and Oracle; Feb. 19, 2007: BellSouth/AT&T; and May 5, 2008: turnover after mergers.). The post-merger law department inevitably shrinks from the total of the pre-merger departments (See my post of Sept. 13, 2005: GC survival after a merger.).

Edward Russell-Walling, 50 Management ideas you really need to know (Quercus 2007) at 73, pushes alliteration a long way as he cites research that suggests 10 ways to help employees feel more engaged.

1. Connect – “leaders must actively show that they value employees” (See my posts of Jan. 30, 2008: CEO praise of Textron’s legal department; May 3, 2008: GC has monthly breakfasts with department members; and Feb. 16, 2007: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.).

2. Career – “leaders should provide challenging and meaningful work with opportunities for career advancement” (See my posts of Dec. 28, 2006: few promotions but some other choices; June 24, 2007: intractable management problem of career paths; and Jan. 8, 2008: how to minimize angst.).

Those who manage people in law departments have to learn to recognize the differences between these interactions and deal with them appropriately.

Competition between two or more lawyers can appear everywhere in a law department. How often the general counsel commends you in staff meetings, who gets chosen to speak at retreats, where offices end up regarding size and location, when plum assignments are doled out, how quickly someone is promoted, and many other forms of recognition are worth competing for. Everywhere there are positional attributes (See my post of Dec. 10, 2005 on positional goods.). Indeed, in-house attorneys plunge into rivalrous competition (See my post of Feb. 28, 2006: the value of an officer title; and Oct. 10, 2005: politics and succession planning.).

Non-cooperation casts a shadow over healthy competition. It means withholding information or resources that would help someone else do better (See my posts of Jan. 17, 2006: passive-aggressive behavior; Feb. 9, 2008: silos that keep fiefdoms to themselves.).

I have quarried much from InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 61, which reports on a survey of in-house counsel on career satisfaction. In one part of the survey, respondents chose from a list of 11 MOST rewarding parts of working in-house and another list of 11 LEAST rewarding parts.

“Exposure to the business side” came out on top as a plus (26.7% chose it), but at the same time “dealing with business people” was a negative (3.1%, next to the least negative). Does this suggest that abstractly it is engaging to know how one’s company makes money, but when you get down to it, business clients can be a pain in the neck? How do we reconcile these two findings?

It is frustrating that “type of legal work I do” (a negative rating of 3.6%, number 9 down the list) does not map perfectly with “variety of legal work” (a positive rating of 20.3, 3rd on the list).

In its recent survey of career satisfaction, InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 61, more than 1,200 in-house counsel responded. One question asked respondents to choose from a list of 11 the MOST rewarding parts of working in-house while a second question asked them to choose from another list of 11 the LEAST rewarding parts.

“My supervisor” came in fifth out of the 11 demoralizers (5.9% chose it), but there was nothing about managers on the list of things that pump up in-house lawyers. Many people talk about the inspiration of leaders and mentors so it would be good to offer that choice on the next survey (See my posts of April 30, 2006: looseness of the term “mentor”; July 14, 2005: differences between mentor and coach; April 27, 2005: Eastman Kodak offering; April 30, 2006: mentors and threatening successors; May 7, 2006: diversity and mentoring at GE; May 10, 2006: skills Canadian corporate counsel will need; Sept. 25, 2006: mentoring compared to other forms of assistance to employees; Nov. 25, 2006: C&I mentoring scheme; Oct. 31, 2007: programs cut across organizational boundaries; Jan. 18, 2008: rating professional development programs.). Other research shows that the single largest determinant of an employee’s contentment with a job is the behavior of the employee’s manager. That makes sense in the context of a law department.

I began a series on four drivers of employee engagement (See my post of Jan. 10, 2008: “business.”). With a burst of alliteration, the second driver is “boss.” It goes without saying that every boss significantly influences the level of engagement of those who are bossed. Some earn deep loyalty among those who work with them. They are role models, leaders, co-workers who help others produce their best work.

InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 61, surveyed its readers on career satisfaction. A previous post comments on the methodology of the survey and a second one on vacation hours (See my posts of May 11, 2008 [two].). In one part of the survey, respondents chose from a list of 11 MOST rewarding parts of working in-house and another list of 11 LEAST rewarding parts.

Three aspects of work appear only on the least rewarding list. Those morale busters are “managing a budget,” “my supervisor,” and “dealing with outside counsel.” Each aspect deserves a moment of reflection.

As to budgets, it is unclear whether the list selection refers to internal budgets of a department, to budgets of law firms on specific matters, or to both. Many corporate counsel have no budget responsibility so those who do must have clobbered that task as onerous. It came in 3rd of 11 (10.6% chose it). Lawyers in companies dislike budgets because they are hard to prepare, time-consuming, conflict provoking, sometimes perceived as pointless, and disagreeable constraints or pressure.

An earlier post mentions the risk to a general counsel that a specialist who supplements the department’s lawyers, in a practice support role such as knowledge manager, e-discovery supervisor, or database guru, may leave for a vendor or consultant (See my post of March 13, 2006: expert staff at risk of being poached.).

A telling example comes from Legal Tech. News, Vol. 15, May 2008 at 12, which reports that Jeff Beard, who was the Legal Services IT Manager in Caterpillar’s law department, has joined Electronic Evidence Discovery Inc., a service provider.

Compensation schemes of companies are not flexible enough to compete. Also, the job outside offers more variety, although probably at the cost of traveling much more.

An article in Talent Mgt., Jan. 2008 at 45, extols the importance of personality traits. “Research indicates between 20 percent and 25 percent of an individual employee’s effectiveness on the job is attributable to his or her personality.” That high degree of influence seems less likely for in-house lawyers, knowledge workers who often toil on their own with expectations of professionalism because they share values, an education, and collegial expectations.

Even aside from the characteristics of in-house attorneys, not everyone agrees that personality makes such a difference to effectiveness (See my posts of Jan. 1, 2006: IQ tests predict work performance ten times better than do personality tests; April 22, 2007: “personality is not a particularly good predictor of behavior”; and Feb. 28, 2006: emotional intelligence predicts 85% of a lawyer’s career success.).

Finally, setting aside an exceptionalist view of lawyers and disagreements over the relative contributin of personality, the term itself is protean, its definition hard to pin down (See my posts of Nov. 13, 2005: competency, IQ, personality, and emotional intelligence; Nov. 22, 2006: personality-test questions; May 14, 2006: most important personality traits for in-house counsel; Nov. 8, 2007: psychometric tests and references cited; and Jan. 1, 2006: “executive intelligence.”). If “personality” becomes the sum total of someone’s behavior, it is a tautology to say that personality influences job performance.

InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 61, reports that of the1200 in-house counsel who responded to its career satisfaction survey, nearly two-thirds of them (63.6%) get more than 15 vacation days annually. I assume that means the plurality gets four weeks per year.

Since at some companies you have to work there for some number of years – five is a common mark – to qualify for four weeks of vacation, a group of the respondents simply had not qualified yet. A more precise question would have asked, “What is the maximum amount of vacation a lawyer at your level can earn in a year?”

Nevertheless, my assumption is that nearly all veteran in-house lawyers in the United States are entitled to take at least a month of vacation every year (See my posts of June 30, 2007: workaholics; May 18, 2007: vacation days taken in law departments; April 23, 2006 and April 1, 2005: sabbaticals for in-house counsel; and Dec. 12, 2006: “extreme jobs.”).