Articles Posted in Talent

Humans just aren’t built to be happy, according to the Wall St. J., May 2, 2007 at D1. Evolutionists say we are built to survive and reproduce, with “the promise of happiness … just a trick to jolly us along.” Sociologists say our beliefs on happiness are personal codes that keep society functioning. Even if happiness is somewhat in our control, there are limits (See my posts of March 23, 2006 on neurophysiology; April 15, 2007 on unhappiness in law departments; and three on our inherited “happiness set points” – April 15, 2007; March 8, 2006; and Jan. 13, 2006 #2.)

Whatever the reasons, we have problems staying happy. Here are four of them. (1) “People emphasize differences that are easy to observe ahead of time and forget about the similarities.” So, for example, people in a law department may think that a business casual policy will give them joy, in part because they forget that they still have to choose what to wear and will compare themselves to others. (2) “We fail to anticipate how quickly we will adapt to improvements in our lives.” The pleasure of the assigned, in-door parking spot wears off quickly and we take the privilege for granted (See my post of Dec. 22, 2005 on the hedonic treadmill of income.).

(3) We don’t accurately recall how the last change really felt. “We work devilishly hard to get that next promotion, because we’re sure it will leave us elated. We forget that, when we last got promoted, it was a bit of a letdown.” Finally, (4) we rely too much on the opinions of others, yet they justify their own decisions (See my post of April 5, 2007 on cognitive dissonance), instead of watching their actual behavior. The general counsel talks about being fulfilled, but watch how often he or she is grumpy, harassed, or despondent (See my post of Nov. 16, 2005 on experience sampling and episode reconstruction.).

The New York City Bar Association collected data, as of March 2006, from 15 law departments that signed its Statement of Diversely Principles. Those law departments reported that 51 attorneys, or about 4.2% of their 1,200 attorneys, work flexibly in New York law offices. The report uses the term “flexible work arrangements” (FWAs).

The majority of those on flexible work arrangements in corporate signatories have full-time FWAs (3.2%) as opposed to part-time arrangements (1.0%). Later, the report adds that 82 percent of the in-house lawyers working flexibly are women (See my post of June 9, 2007 on flex-time and compressed time arrangements with references cited.).

An article in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 85, March 2007 at 115, lays out a framework for human capital management (See my posts of May 11, 2007 with the first 9 practices and May 28, 2007 with the final 14; as well as June 10, 2007 on Leadership; and June 11, 2007 on Employee Engagement.). Here are my references and comments on the practices under category three, “Knowledge Accessibility”:

1. Availability: “Job-related information and training are readily available.” (See my posts of Jan. 20, 2006 on mandatory CLE; May 10, 2005 on reimbursement of CLE expenses; May 1, 2005 on the obligation to disseminate CLE training; July 14, 2005 on a spectrum of training methods; April 13, 2006 on antitrust training at Philips; April 15, 2006 on role play as a method to train; May 7, 2006 about financial literacy training; March 9, 2007 on how to evaluate training; March 24, 2007 regarding paralegal training; and May 24, 2007 as to outside counsel who provide CLE training.).

2. Collaboration: “Teamwork is encouraged and enabled” (See my posts of Nov. 8, 2005 on HR and teamwork; and Dec. 18, 2006 on assessment of teamwork.).

Robert Major, of legal search firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, makes you think with his article in Corp. Counsel, June 2007 at 69, on internal promotions. “When a company commits to performing a search for their next general counsel and there is an internal candidate, the odds are stacked strongly against the insider.” When a formal search is initiated, someone has decided that the internal candidate pool is too shallow. For several reasons the inside candidates are swimming against the tide.

According to Major, “people are often remembered for their worst work, not their best — and everyone makes mistakes.” Outsiders have no blemishes. Second, the work of the inside candidates is well-known within the company, warts and all, whereas a stranger can put makeup on her background almost with impunity. He also points out that the incumbent has generally been typecast as a number two. Executives are accustomed to that lawyer’s subordinate role and can’t shift to an elevated view of the person.

Another drawback for the second-in-command is that he or she has often been in charge of an area that is, obviously, narrower than the mandate of the General Counsel. It’s hard for board members and senior executives to envision the lawyer in a broader role. Finally, management teams often favor an outsider’s fresh perspective.” They may see the general counsel selection as an opportunity to “upgrade the office gene pool and welcome diversity to their executive ranks.”

“Research suggests that men are more likely to prefer centralization and inequality than women; studies of social dominance orientation, for example, report that men endorse social inequality more than women. Men tend to support policies that favor social hierarchy, whereas women favor social equality and communality. Further, men tend to favor equity norms, which reward individuals for their contributions to a group, and women tend to favor equality norms, which emphasize equal outcomes for group members regardless of their contributions. Equity norms tolerate and often facilitate inequality and social hierarchy, whereas equality norms do not.”

This quote, from The Best of Rotman Magazine, Vol. 2, at 104, predicts that male general counsel tend to impose their will on their department (“I am the alpha lawyer!”), whereas women work more together with members of their department (“Let’s join together as a team.”). Moreover, men might favor setting a higher proportion of bonuses based on an individual’s contribution; while women might favor giving more importance to the department’s collective contribution (See my post of Dec. 31, 2006 about the imperial general counsel.).

An article in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 85, March 2007 at 115, describes 23 human capital management practices in five broad categories (See my posts of May 11, 2007 with the first 9 practices and May 28, 2007 with the final 14; and June 10, 2007 on Leadership.). Here are my references and comments on the four practices under the category “Employee Engagement”:

1. Job Design: “Work is well organized and taps employees’ skills” (See my posts of March 16, 2006 on A-players and A-positions; Sept. 10, 2005 on stuck-in-place lawyers; and Feb. 6, 2007 on processes and references cited.).

2. Commitment: “Jobs are secure, employees are recognized, and advancement is possible” (See my posts of June 15, 2006 as to why job insecurity blocks knowledge management; March 28, 2006 about more job security in a law firm; and Nov. 6, 2006 about in-house job security.). As to career paths (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.).

An article in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 85, March 2007 at 115, describes 23 human capital management practices in five broad categories (See my posts of May 11, 2007 with the first 9 practices and May 28, 2007 with the final 14.). With some bracketed text to orient these ideas for law departments, here are my references and comments on the five practices under the category “Leadership Practices”:

1. Communication: “With [attorneys with management responsibilities] communication is open and effective” (See my posts of Dec. 7, 2005 on communication time wasters; Oct. 19, 2006 on communication tools; and Nov. 30, 2005 on the clamor for more communication in departments.).

2. Inclusiveness: “[Managing attorneys] collaborate with employees and invite input” (See my posts of April 2, 2006 on forms of collaboration; May 14, 2006 on communication compared to collaboration; Dec. 18, 2006 on a way to assess collaboration; April 13, 2007 #3 on neuroscience and collaboration; and Dec. 9, 2005 on liking colleagues and collaboration.).

At a recent ALIC conference, Janet Gallo, associate general counsel of Acacia Life, gave attendees copies of her company’s policies on “flextime” and “compressed time.”

Essentially, “core hours” are “the designated period during the normal workday during which associates [employees] are expected to be present” – typically 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Flextime permits employees to vary their arrival and departure times outside core hours.

“Compressed time” allows an employee “to complete 80 hours of work in less than the regularly scheduled 10-day biweekly pay period.” A common example at UNIFI is a 4-day workweek of 10-hour days.

For a recent ALIC conference, Michele Gallo, associate general counsel of Acacia Life, distributed some material she prepared about how to develop leaders in a law department. One slide, entitled “Vehicles for Development,” describes three ways in which in-house lawyers become more proficient. Gallo even estimates how much of their learning comes by way of each method.

“On-the-job” gets 70 percent, which is probably even on the low side for most in-house counsel. You learn your in-house craft by figuring it out as you go along (See my post of Dec. 22, 2006 about methods of learning, with OJT.).

“Coaching” accounts for another 20 percent of development, according to Gallo (See my posts of April 14, 2005 on coaches for general counsel; July 14, 2005 on knowledge coaches; April 30, 2006 on the looseness of the term “mentor”; June 7, 2006 on the boost of subsequent coaching to training; Sept. 25, 2006 on coaching compared to other forms of help; Jan. 20, 2007 on developmental and executive coaching; and July 14, 2005 on the difference between a mentor and a coach.).

An item in Legal Week, Vol. 9, May 10, 2007 at 4, gives some data about the first-job expectations of law students in the UK. Note the juxtaposition of ideas from the Sweet & Maxwell survey findings: “Almost half of all law students expect to work more than 50 hours a week after qualifying into the profession …, with just 1% of prospective lawyers targeting a career in-house.”

The quote implies that long hours of work are not the lot of in-house lawyers. The quote is also unclear; it could mean that only one percent of law grads expect to join a legal department straight out of school, or it could mean that only one percent envision themselves ever employed in-house. Is suspect the former is correct, since few law departments – at least in the US – want to hire shiny new law grads.