Articles Posted in Talent

“The mere thought of being on the receiving end of verbal abuse hurts people’s ability to perform complex tasks requiring creativity, flexibility, and memory recall” announces research reported in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 86, March 2008 at 21. One explanation for the degradation of cognitive performance is that after exposure to rudeness, people think hard about the incident and those thoughts steal cognitive resources from other tasks. Abusive language has toxic effects. Worse, it harms innocent bystanders, something analogous to the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke. A lacerating tongue has no place in a worthy legal department.

This blog has returned several times to the subject of bad behavior by managers (See my posts of Dec. 21, 2005: emotional intelligence declines with rank;.Jan. 13, 2006: trio of consequences of managerial incompetence; Feb. 15, 2006: ten dumbest things GCs can do; June 21, 2006: anger in men and women; March 18, 2007: GCs who are bad managers; Dec. 31, 2006: the “imperial” general counsel; Feb. 7, 2007: men and anger; Aug. 4, 2007: permit no jerks; Aug. 10, 2007: personality disorders among GCs; and Jan. 19, 2008: if the GC is a bully.).

An article in Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 31, Summer 2007 at 66, compares aggressive behavior in men and women. “Psychologists have found that while men channel their aggression through purported ‘rationality’ (interrupting, criticizing unjustly, questioning others’ judgments), women are more likely to use ‘social manipulation’ (gossiping, backbiting, ostracizing) to get what they want.”

To the extent such broad and general differences apply to particular in-house lawyers, those who manage them should moderate aggressive behavior that detracts from the department’s effectiveness (See my posts of Jan. 7, 2006: passive-aggressive behavior; Oct. 10, 2005: succession competition; and Jan. 19, 2008: general counsel as a bully.). What is probably difficult it is for a general counsel of either sex to pick up on aggressive behavior by staff members of the opposite sex.

Once a year, all newly-hired General Electric lawyers are put through a three-day orientation. The orientation tells them about the huge law department’s various practice areas, their roles, players and functions. “In the second half of the program, new attorneys use a GE case study to learn basic finance and accounting concepts, including the company’s financial statement as well as GE’s business.” This comes from GC Mid-Atlantic, March 2008 at 15. “GE also runs a week-long in-house advance business course where the company’s lawyers learn financial analysis, performance measurements, issues with profitability, and operating margins and leadership skills.”

Few law departments can afford such a comprehensive on-boarding. All law departments can think about how to bring new lawyers into the fold most effectively (See my post of Jan. 4, 2008: socialization of new hires.).

All of us form quick impressions, as well as many lasting impressions, based on someone’s appearance (See my posts of Nov. 9, 2006: advantages of height; Feb. 1, 2007 #2: height and intelligence; and April 7, 2006: looks and height.). Much discrimination is based on inherited physical characteristics (See my post of Sept. 4, 2006: minority counsel compared to diverse counsel.) and life is littered with prejudices (See my post of March 17, 2006: gay and lesbian lawyers.).

Whomped with the ugly stick some in-house lawyers may be (See my post of Jan. 8, 2008: homely looks of corporate counsel.), but there’s more to appearance on this blog than meets the eye. Appearances are nothing to dismiss in this youthfulness-worshipping botox culture (See my post of Jan. 25, 2008: smile your way to financial success.). Dress codes testify to the potency of appearance (See my post of Oct. 22, 2005: my iron-clad rule on dress codes.) and people even notice handedness (See my post of March 12, 2006: left-handed lawyers.).

Sometime I will write about prejudice against over-weight lawyers. Better to work out diligently at the corporate fitness center (See my posts of April 16, 2007 on corporate health centers; and Feb. 25, 2008: exercise jogs the brain.). Otherwise, keep an eye on the mirror.

Hypersonic sound broadcasts audio in a focused beam, so that only a person standing directly in its path hears the message. The big brotherness of what I am about to write feels creepy, but it may be that law departments of the future will have hypersonic reminders to lawyers to review their backlog of bills, for example.

Instead of e-mail reminders (how 20th century!) or announcements on the wiki intranet, the general counsel might turn on hypersonic reminders about the upcoming legal management meeting or the deadline for submitting evaluations of staff. These futuristic musings played in my mind after reading Wired, April 2008 at 60.

The recent report by Lexakos, Chief Legal Officer 2008 Strategic Planning Survey, draws on responses from more than 100 chief legal officers. According to Rick Wolf, founder of Lexakos, 86 percent of them “do not plan to expand internal staff dedicated to litigation support.”

How you interpret this finding depends on the size of the law departments in the respondent population. A large number of law departments are too small to staff a position devoted primarily to litigation support (See my post of April 15, 2006: solo GCs.). Of the remaining law departments in the Lexakos sample, some number may already have the person or two onboard and they need no one else. If you have headcount constraints a standstill position says nothing about the value the top lawyer might perceive of such a role. The finding also may suggest that the cottage industry of litigation support providers has done a good job in providing services (See my post of Feb. 9, 2006: cottage industry of litigation support; and Jan. 28, 2007: litigation specialty providers.).

A talent tool that all general counsel should understand is the 360-degree assessment (See my post of Dec. 26, 2007: worries about confidentiality of 360s and five references cited.). Assessments are available for specific companies and certain industries, but I do not know of one designed specifically for law departments. A piece in Talent Mgt., July 2007 at 23, reviews the talent-development tool and makes several useful points.

“The true value of the 360 is that it can show individuals how their self perception differs from the perceptions of others.” They can reveal personal blind spots.

A general counsel might want to invest in 360s for every lawyer to create a composite view of the department. There may be training that ought to be done throughout. Smart general counsel realize cultural change starts with individual change, and they can complement those changes with a departmental development strategy.

According to an email I received, the Call to Action Summit, taking place April 24 – 25 in Scottsdale, AZ, expects to bring together more than 100 managing partners and chief legal officers to discuss the issue of workplace diversity within the legal profession. At the professional level in the legal community, there are still 44 percent more men than woman. Minorities make up less than 15 professional of the total professional staff (See my post of March 17, 2006: questions the impact of the Call to Action.).

CTA was formed in 2004 by corporate chief legal officers who wanted to start a dialogue to address the underlying and systemic causes that have created barriers for advancement based on gender, race and sexual orientation. The CTA Summit is now the opportunity to replace rhetoric with measurable action. For the first time, leading decision makers and influencers will be together in one room to establish benchmarks and create an action plan for increasing diversity throughout the profession. Sub-committees are in place to ensure that progress is sustained following the inaugural event.

Rick Palmore, the CTA founder and executive vice president and general counsel for General Mills has spearheaded this conference. For more details, email here.

Human capital theory is the reigning economic theory of what determines wages. “Human capital theory explains differences in wage rates by differences in education, training, experience, intelligence, motivation, and other human factors that influence productivity.” Human capital commands a price in the labor market. The focus of the theory is on the worker rather than the job (See my post of March 20, 2008: pay and the value of practice areas.).

The human capital bundled into any given in-house attorney yields a greater return if invested in the right position. “The person who embodies a certain level of human capital will realize his full value only if placed in a position with adequate scope and the opportunity.” (See my posts of March 16, 2007: A-positions; and July 14, 2005: situational matches and four dimensions.).

The secret to making the most of a law department’s staff is to maximize human capital per dollar spent and to maximize each person’s fit with the tasks that person needs to do. All this is the gospel according to Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook, The Winner-Take-All Society (Penguin Books 1995) at 89-90.

From time to time, companies appoint an interim general counsel when the incumbent leaves suddenly. Examples include Home Depot (See my post of March 16, 2008: layoffs at Home Depot and interim GC Jim Snyder.), Sears, and Coca-Cola (See my post of June 5, 2006: designated successors.). Recently, the general counsel of Pfizer, Allan Waxman, resigned and that company appointed an interim general counsel. Sometimes the lawyer is referred to as the “acting general counsel.”

My sense of these situations, unfettered by any facts about any of the specific companies mentioned, is that we can draw two conclusions. One of them is that the resignation of the general counsel happened suddenly, before the company could complete a careful search for a successor. The other is that the bench of the legal department lacks strength, as there was no one groomed to step in right away as the full-fledged general counsel.