Articles Posted in Talent

A newsletter from the US law firm DrinkerBiddle, Dec. 2007 at 2, discusses proposed bills in at least 13 states to prohibit “unlawful” workplace bullying. The newsletter informally defines workplace bullying as “the tendency of an individual or group of individuals to persistently display aggressive or unreasonable behavior against a co-worker.” It can include verbal and non-verbal abuse. Bullying can take a variety of forms, “which include rudeness, belligerence, screaming, cursing, destruction of property or work product, social ostracism and even physical assault.”

Some general counsel are tough moody, volatile, or rude (See my post of Aug. 4, 2007 about hiring no jerks.). Some praise sparingly, shall we say, and don’t mince words about underperformance. It is not uncommon to work for a demanding and insensitive toughie (See my post of Dec. 21, 2005 on emotional intelligence declining with rank.). If an average-performing lawyer is often on the receiving end of criticism, difficult behavior, and the boss pushing for extra performance, some of those lawyers will perceive themselves as being illegally picked on.

I abhor workplace cruelty, tyranny and obnoxious behavior (See my post of Dec. 31, 2007 on holiday parties and proper behavior.). Even so, loosely and broadly worded statutes will make being a manager even more difficult.

A previous post summarized survey data on the purported laissez faire attitude of many firm and department managers about departures of top talent (See my post of Jan.17, 2008.). The same survey described there asked respondents to rate or list the “professional development programs” that are “most effective in retaining top performers” (See my posts of July 29, 2007 on high-potential lawyers and references cited.).

Mentoring programs led the results, with 46 percent choosing it. Far behind was continuing legal education (CLE) at 24 percent. Leadership training came third at 18 percent followed by a long drop to “participation in an exchange program in firm’s/company’s foreign location” at 2 percent. “Something else” was at 1 percent and “don’t know/no answer” garnered 9 percent.

These results mystify me. I believe that high-quality work and frequent recognition would best hold good lawyers. Mentoring is often about socialization (See my posts of Oct. 31, 2007 on mentoring and references cited; and Jan. 4, 2008 on socialization.). In terms of retaining stars, CLE doesn’t even seem to be a candidate for this list.

A survey by Robert Half Legal gathered responses from 300 attorneys among the largest law firms and corporations in North America. As mentioned by Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 16, Jan. 2008 at 55, all respondents had at least three years of experience in the legal field.

One question was, “How concerned are you about losing your top talent to other law firms or legal departments?” The responses were “very concerned” at 12 percent; “somewhat concerned” at 43 percent; “not concerned” at 42 percent, and “don’t know/no answer” at 3 percent.

It’s frustrating that Robert Half didn’t separate law firm responses from law department responses. Law firms, after all, can’t make every associate a partner, so they expect and plan for attrition. A general counsel, to point out the obvious, does not want to lose lawyers (See my post of Dec. 12, 2006 on low attrition rates among UK departments.), often has no bench strength, faces difficulties hiring lawyers (See my post Dec. 3, 2007 #1 about executive search placements.), and tries to hold together a team over time (See my posts of May 14, 2005 and June 15, 2005 on the cost to law departments of turnover.).

By my understanding, an employee of a law department is something different when “engaged” than when “satisfied.” Perhaps this is my idiosyncratic nomenclature, but employee satisfaction connotes to a degree how they feel about some of the external factors that contribute to people’s attitudes about being at work. For example, compensation, promotion opportunities, clarity of communication from above, and office furnishings (See my post of Feb. 6, 2007 about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.).

Engagement runs deeper as it speaks to closely-held sources of commitment and shared values, such as attachment to the purpose of the company. A worker can be satisfied but not fully engaged.

I should note that the link, if any, between engagement, client satisfaction, and productivity is tenuous. A lawyer can turn out prodigious amounts of work while being distant from her job. Conversely, a lawyer who cares deeply about her work situation’s goals and values may be unable to think fast enough and work with enough discipline to be even moderately productive.

Prof. Daniel Hamermesh of the Univ. of Texas has studied links between physical beauty and a person’s success. Some of his research about lawyers is summarized in the Economist, Dec. 22, 2007 at 54. For example, he analyzed students of an American law school and found that “those rated attractive on the basis of their graduation photographs went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured colleagues.”

Worse follows. “Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those working in government departments.” Is it the plight of the in-house community not only to be overworked and under-paid but also to be cosmetically challenged?

The article concludes that “beauty is a real marker for other, underlying characteristics such as health, good genes, and intelligence” (See my posts of Nov. 9, 2006 about the advantages of height; and April 7, 2006 about looks and height.)

True, career progression may be one of law-department management’s intractables (See my post of June 24, 2007.). Even so, there are some steps that general counsel can take to improve this prickly subject.

1. Publish a chart that shows for each level of progression roughly what the general counsel expects lawyers to demonstrate if they are to be promoted (See my posts of March 6, 2006 on dual-track systems; March 28, 2006 on reasons to go in-house; and Dec. 28, 2006 on few promotions.).

2. Conduct meaningful evaluations of lawyers during which you tell them where they stand and what they need to do to move forward (See my post of July 29, 2007 on human capital management and references cited.).

Some of you who gather your lawyers together once a year or so might benefit from a few of my observations from a recent conference. The three-day conference was excellently sited and orchestrated.

1. Panels with multiple speakers always go beyond the allotted time, and the more speakers on the panel the more the clock runs over.

2. More generally, almost everyone seems to push the clock. When people are talking about what they do, they lose track of time. Schedules are made to be disregarded.

Smile at the quote that follows, for it crams a lot of misunderstanding into a few lines: “For example, when faced with significant legal challenges, a company will often appoint a lawyer as their CEO. The legal department then has increased stature, power and resources that allow the firm to address its legal challenges.”

The authors of this mishmash, writing in Cal. Mgt. Rev., Vol. 49, Summer 2007 at 55, were trying to give a realistic instance of the “contingent power model.” Briefly, the model posits that when companies face a threat, they promote and support people who can address the threat. The trouble is, those individuals consolidate their power and refuse to surrender it once the threat passes and the need for their particular skills recedes. Hence the made-up example of the lawyer-CEO coming in when legal fires burn brightly.

The problem is that the authors dreamed up a silly illustration. All companies face significant legal challenges, but they do not rush to put a lawyer in the corner office, probably for the reason that other challenges are even more significant or lawyers are not good managers. The exceptions to this are noteworthy (See my post of May 26, 2007 about GCs who become CEO.). It’s even more improbable that a Board of Directors would choose as its CEO a lawyer who was not the general counsel. Even deeper, which department might have been at least partially culpable for the perilous legal situation of the company?

This nifty term, ripe with all kinds of ideas useful for law department managers, showed up in an article on innovation in services, published by Cal. Mgt. Rev., Vol. 50, Fall 2007 at 174.

Socialization means how those who join a law department come to learn its culture – its combination of values and norms (See my post of Nov. 20, 2007 for a discussion of those terms.). Most general counsel give little thought to the absorption process, yet effectively welcoming, making comfortable, and integrating a new person makes a huge difference for everyone.

The hiring process starts to indoctrinate a new recruit. A few legal departments thereafter have pre-meditated on-boarding processes and manuals. A half-day “new hire” orientation, stuffed with forms and signatures, may be the extent of it. Later, mentors may help socialize a new arrival (See my post of July 14, 2005 on knowledge coaches.).

A number of entries have dealt with flex-time (See my post of June 9, 2007 and four references cited.) and telecommuting (See my post of May 30, 2006.) but none of them have pulled together the basic principles of success. For convenience I will refer to them as “alternative hour arrangements” (AHAs).

1. Grant these rights to AHA workers who have earned your confidence.

2. Treat everyone equally who seeks an AHA.