Articles Posted in Talent

A survey in 2006 by the Institute of Executive Development and RHR International www.execsight.com asked respondents to choose which characteristics are most important for future leaders to possess. Eight abilities were available to choose from, but two dominated those actually chosen: “strategic thinking” and “ability to develop others.” Where respondents could choose multiple characteristics, those two both garnered 50 percent of the choices.

As this was reported in Talent Management Mag., Vol. 3, March 2007 at 42, the remaining choices and their percentages were “business acumen/business-specific knowledge (38%), “ability to motivate and inspire” (33%), “ability to manage significant organizational change” (29%), “relationship building/networking” (29%), “cross-national/cross-cultural understanding” (18%), and “ability to manage the performance of others” (17%). Each of these capabilities has importance to high-potential lawyers in companies (See my posts of May 14, 2005 on executive courses for high-potential lawyers; Nov. 25, 2006 for the efforts of InBev; and May 7, 2006 for GE’s efforts on behalf of high-potential lawyers.).

Data from a robust survey reported in InsideCounsel, March 2007 at 59, gives us some understanding about how long it takes to fill a corporate lawyer slot. The question asked of the law department respondents was, “On average, how long does it take to fill an attorney position?”

More than six months (11.3%)

Three months to six months (57.6%)

How do law department lawyers find additional hires? Based on over 600 responses to a survey reported in InsideCounsel, March 2007 at 60, the clear edge goes to placement firms (See my post of July 5, 2006 on executive search firms’ services.). Here is the rank order given by respondents for their methods and resources to hire lawyers:

Placement firms (61.5%)

Employee referrals (46.6%)

Based on over 600 responses to a survey, and as reported in InsideCounsel, March 2007 at 59, law departments would prefer to hire lawyers from another legal department 50 percent more than than they would prefer to hire from a law firm. Specifically, 34 percent of the respondents like to hire from another department, whereas 20 percent like to hire from law firms. Almost half of the respondents (45%) have no preference (See my post of Oct. 26, 2005 with its fabricated data on sources of hires.).

Not surprisingly, the two categories of lawyers sought most frequently are generalists and contract specialists. Surveys and consulting experience show that about half of all in-house lawyers are commercial generalists who spend much of their time on contracts.

A study, published in the McKinsey Quarterly, 2007 No. 1 at 6, analyzes survey data to determine what factors make a difference in effective procurement organizations. The survey of 202 companies employed regression and cluster analysis of the scores, and then used those scores to divide the companies into low, moderate and high performers. A further analysis of the relationship between each company’s procurement score and its overall financial performance revealed that three talent dimensions accounted for a disproportionate share of the top performers’ edge.

A bar chart shows eight best-practice factors in procurement, and gives a percentage for how much the factor contributes to performance improvement. For example, “purchasing capabilities/talent management” accounted for 25 percent. The second talent factor, called “mind-sets and aspirations,” accounted for 16 percent. The article concludes: “[c]reating a high performing procurement organization starts with managing people, not processes.”

I’m wandering far afield, those few readers who make it this far might murmur, but the others miss several important points. First, talent management in law departments is almost certainly as crucial as in procurement groups. Second, the methodology put to work by McKinsey would apply as well as to researching many kinds of law department management issues (See my post of July 4, 2006 on empirical law department research; Oct. 23, 2005 about the dearth of academic, empirical research; and Aug. 1, 2006 on natural experiments.). And third, the progress of law department management is hobbled because data-based research on practices and their efficacy is rarely compiled, let alone published.

Legal Week, Vol. 9, Mar 1, 2007 at 5, deems it noteworthy that Motorola announced that it was looking for a new UK head of legal. The spokesperson gave the name of the departing lawyer, Palwinder Hare, mentioned the lawyer who will be taking the role during the interim, and pointed out that Motorola has more than 200 lawyers worldwide to support its annual revenues of almost $43 billion.

Aside from giving the compensation range expected to be paid, that information, plus the fact that the position reports to global general counsel Peter Lawson in Chicago, goes a long way to tell prospective applicants about the open high-level position. Thus, at no cost, and without incurring advertising or executive search fees (See my posts of July 5, 2006 on executive search firms’ services; and March 26, 2005 about executive search firms possibly inflating compensation.), Motorola has cast its net widely for a worthy successor candidate.

A good point made by a consultant, James Wilber of Altman Weil, appears in InsideCounsel, Feb. 2007 at 54. Wilber has observed that “often corporations classify paralegals as administrative staff, with salaries too low to attract highly trained professionals.” He makes the logical recommendation: redesign the salary structure so that paralegal positions – at least senior level paralegals – are in the higher salary band of professionals. Even a few thousand dollars a year more makes a big difference in the quality of paralegal you can then attract.

Large law departments should pay attention to how many of their lawyers leave, whether because the lawyers are asked to leave or because they choose to leave (See my post of Aug. 24, 2005 on the value of exit interviews.). That turnover rate is a basic measure of human capital management.

A more sophisticated analysis looks at how many lawyers leave who had top evaluations of performance as compared to those who left in the lower ranks of performance assessment. A law department might strive to keep the loss of high capability lawyers at something like 1 percent a year, while it tolerates the loss of lawyers with the lowest performance rankings at 20 percent or more a year (See my post of March 16, 2006 about A positions and A players.).

Angela Braly, who currently serves as WellPoint’s executive vice president, general counsel and chief public affairs officer, will become the CEO of the nation’s largest health insurer. According to USA Today, Feb. 27, 2007 at 3B, Braly has been with the company since 1999. It also points out that 58 percent of the company’s management ranks are women (See my post of Jan. 27, 2006 regarding promotions of male general counsel to the CEO office.).

Congratulations, Ms. Braly, on putting another crack in the glass ceiling.

E. Norman Veasey and Christine T. Di Guglielmo, in “The Tensions, Stresses, and Professional Responsibilities of the Lawyer for the Corporation,” Bus. Lawyer, Vol. 62, Nov. 2006 at 1, recommend (at 13) that “the Board of Directors should have approval responsibility for selecting, retaining, and compensating the general counsel.” The term “approval responsibility” quivers with ambiguity, but the gist of the sentence seems to be that the Board should have more decision-making power regarding a new general counsel than should the CEO.

I have always thought that it is the prerogative of the CEO to select the chief lawyer for the company, albeit with input from the Board of Directors.

But Veasey, the former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, and Di Guglielmo, an associate at Veasey’s current law firm, would give to the board the knighting sword: “By providing a buffer between the general counsel and the CEO, this will serve to reduce pressure on General Counsel to accede to questionable management plans.” Why not extend that power to CFO’s? Or to Chief Compliance Officers? I’m out of my depth here, but it’s hard to imagine CEOs relying as completely on the top lawyer as they often do if the Board picks and pays those lawyers (See my post of Aug. 28, 2005 on the role of consigliore.).