Articles Posted in Talent

You have to wonder about the cost-benefit ratio of CLE programs for in-house lawyers. Research has shown that information and knowledge gained from formal training programs is often not effectively applied. According to Cal. Mgt Rev., Vol. 49, Winter 2007 at 44, “Some researchers have estimated that from the approximately one hundred billion dollars spent annually on all forms of corporate training (from technical training to leadership and executive development), only about 10% is actually applied on the job.”

This makes me wonder how many in-housers would attend CLE courses if if were not for mandatory bar requirements (See my post of Jan. 20, 2006 about CLE not being useful because the in-house attendees are too sophisticated; and June 20, 2007 on the specialization of in-house lawyers.). To be sure, nothing much is known about training taken by in-house lawyers on topics other than substantive legal learning (See my posts of April 12, 2006 on substantive vs. management training; and Sept. 21, 2005 on writing as an example.).

Many general counsel have wrestled with the clamoring of their lawyers to gain more clarity about what it takes to be promoted. One department I consulted to developed an elaborate table where each row was one level in the law department and each column had a summary of what was expected of a lawyer in that level. There were about seven columns, covering such attributes as knowledge of the law, familiarity with the business, productivity, judgment and leadership. Elaborate and impressive, yes; useful, I doubt it.

A matrix of increasing skills and abilities sounds sensible, but if you prepare one you need to prepare one for every level in the department. That is, paralegals, administrative, and other staff members deserve to know what it takes to rise as much as do the lawyers.

A second drawback is that inevitably when you describe what it takes to be promoted you can’t completely and accurately describe what are essentially subjective judgments. By subjective I mean you can’t fully write down what it is that they are looking for when they debate whether a promotion is appropriate.

“Job descriptions are emblematic of stability and as a result are a poor fit for any built-to-change organization.” This dramatic quote, the Sloan Mgt. Rev., Fall 2006 at 19, casts job descriptions in a new light (actually, a new dark). Why bother with the rigidity of a statement of responsibilities only to have to tell a lawyer that the latest assignment always falls under the catch-all “other duties as assigned”?

I have questioned the value of job descriptions (See my posts of June 21, 2006 for criticisms; July 5, 2006 #3 regarding “rich pictures”; and March 3, 2006 for John Deere’s reevaluation of its position descriptions), but this article criticizes them for a different reason and more forcefully.

A job description may have some use for a recruiter who seeks to fill the position, but thereafter it can only be a constraint on flexibility and career development. One might argue that a position description goes part way to explain what the holder of that position needs to do to be promoted, but I think not; the document is static, not oriented toward learning and progress (See my posts of June 27, 2006 on published promotion criteria; Dec. 28, 2006 about promotions and career paths; March 6, 2006 on dual-track systems; and March 28, 2006 on reasons to go in-house.).

Few law departments these days hire new lawyers directly out of law school (See my post of Nov. 8, 2005 on the rarity of hiring from law school.). Even where that happens, those lawyers typically leave the company at some point.

Hence, it was astonishing to learn from the Nat’l L.J., Vol. 29, May 28, 2007 at 7, that the General Counsel of McDonald’s, Gloria Santona, joined her law department right after graduation from the University of Michigan Law School in 1977 and has stayed with the fast-food company’s law department ever since. In 2001 Santona was appointed General Counsel for the 140-attorney law department.

In his book, Theodore Levitt, Thinking about Management (Free Press 1991) at 18, Levitt writes that “really outstanding managers tend to emerge gradually from the pack, and occasionally suddenly in special circumstances, rather than being specifically selected or trained for command.” His observation contradicts the premise underlying the focus on so-called “high potentials”: spot future leaders early and nurture them specially (See my post of Nov. 25, 2006 about InBev and its program.).

Perhaps, as Levitt thinks, it is not possible to identify future leaders because they must marinate in experience. Meanwhile, if you do try to recognize and accelerate the development of a few lawyers, you might create the halo effect around them (See my post of April 13, 2007 about this tendency.). You’ll certainly trigger cognitive dissonance if anyone questions the anointment (See my post of April 5, 2007 on this mechanism.). Worse, you will disenchant those not patted on the back and might give the chosen few swollen heads. High potential programs are anti-egalitarian, which offends some people’s principles.

There’s almost no way to win for general counsel when it comes to assuring the members of their department satisfying career paths at the pace they desire. If a company is growing rapidly, promotions and additional responsibilities and changes in roles are prevalent, but that is a rare situation.

For most law departments, promotions are infrequent, coming mostly when a more senior lawyer retires or leaves the department. Compensation rises, within modest corporate limits, but better titles or valued increases in reports or responsibility come about infrequently (See my post of March 28, 2006 about reasons not to go in-house; Dec. 28, 2006 about few promotions but some choices; and March 6, 2006 on dual-track paths.).

Ambitious and capable lawyers in a stable department may have little choice but to leave if they want to rise as fast as they seek. General counsel who lose them must take some consolation that their protégée have done well (See my post of May 20, 2005 on the mixed feelings from having a star lawyer in-house.). Otherwise, the unsolvable issue is the status quotidian.

According to Talent Mgt. Magazine, Vol. 3, June 2007, at 20, US corporations “spend about $20 billion a year on employee education in the form of tuition reimbursement.” That may be, but I have never heard of an in-house lawyer taking courses that an employer reimburses.

Probably some lawyers pursue an MBA and maybe some a specialized LLM such as in corporate law (as this author did). Another possibility for tuition reimbursement in-house are courses on how to make more skillful use of software or project management tools (See my post of April 18, 2005 and Feb. 1, 2006 on project managers; Aug. 22, 2006 on requiring project managers for large cases; Dec. 22, 2006 on Eversheds and project managers; and May 10, 2006 on Canadian rankings of the skills needed for in-house lawyers.).

Notwithstanding one-off courses, my impression is that tuition reimbursement covers courses that are taken for a grade toward a degree. Perhaps that perquisite also covers when senior lawyers of corporations take executive development courses (See my posts of April 12, 2006 about executive education courses; Jan. 27, 2006 about Bethlehem Steel’s GC; Aug. 26, 2006 #3 about courses; and May 14, 2005 about a course at Harvard Business School.)

This wisdom comes from Talent Mgt. Magazine, Vol. 3, June 2007, at 19: “Research shows the No. 1 reason people quit their jobs is because of their immediate boss — not the pay, the president of the organization or the company’s earnings. They leave because of things these managers do or, in some cases, what they don’t do.”

A law department’s top lawyers, those who manage others, make or break the job satisfaction of their subordinates (See my post of March 18, 2007 on how most stress comes from one’s manager; and Dec. 31, 2006 on the imperial general counsel.).

For managers, if attrition is high, look in the mirror for the most likely cause. Exit interviews should help face the truth (See my post of Aug. 24, 2005 on exit interviews.).

One step for success that anyone in a law department can apply is to be sensitive to the working style of his or her boss and try to complement or match it. If you observe carefully, you can figure out the person’s preferred style of getting information – orally, in writing, punch line first. You can see if they ask questions or wait until the end; do they make a call quickly or sit on a decision? Are graphs and numbers informative to them, or anathema?

These ideas sprang from a piece in the Harv. Bus. Rev., May 2007 at 64, on how to survive the arrival of a new boss. The authors suggest that you ask the new boss directly about their preferred style. How do they handle disagreements; what kinds of facts cause the person to reconsider a decision; how long is the person’s effective attention span?

All of these efforts – mindful observation, direct inquiries, feedback from others – will help you fit more closely with the general counsel’s personal style of working.

A study described in the Harv. Bus. Rev., May 2007 at 64, looked at voluntary and involuntary turnover rates of proxy-level senior management, which often includes the general counsel, when a new CEO was promoted from within compared to hired from without. When there was an internal promotion, involuntary turnover in the following year or so reached 12.5 percent; when a new CEO joins from another company, involuntary turnover jumped to 26 percent, twice as high (See my posts of May 14, 2005 on job risks for the top lawyers when the CEO is removed; and Aug. 24, 2005 on the seven year itch of the GC position.).

As if that risk of job loss was not bad enough, the authors also looked at how well the departing executives fared in their next job. “Of the approximately 400 proxy-level executives who left following the arrival of a new CEO in 2002 or 2003, none moved to a proxy-level job in any large U.S. firm.” I wish there were data about the prospects of general counsel who are invited to leave when a new CEO arrives.

The bulk of the article outlines seven suggestions that will help general counsel respond to the arrival of a new boss and increase the odds of survival.