Articles Posted in Talent

An article, from InsideCounsel, Oct. 2006 at 56, urges law departments to create “formal, written policies and set clear goals for improving internal demographics, time frames for achieving those goals and uniform methods through which to pursue those objectives.” Admirable, impossible to object to, but the same kind of desiderata could be said for every initiative thought to be important by a law department.

The survey responses (at 60) show that 46 percent of the in-house lawyers who responded said their legal department does not have a written policy on hiring diverse outside counsel or recruiting, retaining and promoting diverse lawyers. Almost one out of four of the respondents did not know whether their department has such a policy — which means if there is a policy it is overlooked or ineffectual.

Advocates of diversity push for law departments to go far beyond formal policies; top management must spread the message and “you have to tie the top people’s bonuses and compensation to achieving certain goals — otherwise there’s very little motivation.” Once more, the cash prod could buttress any management initiative.

The tone of a recent article about diversity efforts in law departments is harsh. According to InsideCounsel, Oct. 2006 at 56 et seq, departments lack enough formal policies (See my post of Oct. 10, 2006.), offer too few mentoring programs, fail to look beyond recruitment, ignore standards for diversity among outside counsel – “by and large, legal departments are doing a poor job diversifying their internal ranks.”

Within the survey results, as I read them, there is cause to be more optimistic. The brighter view starts with the fact that about a third of the responding lawyers are themselves minorities (See my post of Oct. 16, 2006 about methodology in surveys.). They and other respondents were asked whether “minority lawyers in our department have as much opportunity to advance as non–minority lawyers.” To this question 68 percent agreed or strongly agreed while only 14 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. A second question asked whether “our department’s culture is inclusive of all people, no matter their race.” On this question, 76 percent agreed or strongly agreed and the same 14 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

If we apply the analytic tool of combining positives (strongly agree and agree) and comparing that percentage to combined negatives (strongly disagree and disagree), the disproportionately minority group of corporate counsel were positive on opportunity and inclusion by about five to one!

The three steps are hiring, retaining, and advancing minorities, according to InsideCounsel, Oct. 2006 at 56. It isn’t enough to rely on “recruiting or hiring” minorities, and then leave them to their own devices. Though common, that approach fails. The article takes law departments to task, since 44 percent of the 377 survey respondents agreed with the statement “My department is doing enough to diversify its ranks.”

By the way, what is the difference between “recruit” and “hire”? The former has a militaristic connotation and a sense that you are luring the person from another job, while the “hire” seems to apply to employment of people with fewer skills or qualifications than people whom you recruit.

But back to the point. Law departments need to devote special attention and efforts not just to bringing in minorities but also to keeping and promoting them as their abilities warrant.

Most US law departments suffer few voluntary departures of lawyers. Lawyers leave because spouses move, a spin-off or merger closes (See my post of Sept. 13, 2005 on Honeywell and Oracle’s experiences.), or at retirement, but otherwise there is 2-3 percent turnover. What follows from low levels of lawyer departures?

Low turnover leads to gray law departments stuffed with veterans. Where true, forced ranking becomes nonsensical if year after year the good performers remain in place (See my posts of Nov. 14, 2005 and May 4, 2005 calling the practice questionable.). There is diminished emphasis on succession planning when promotions are rare, perhaps on training too, but a department can sustain wider spans of control. Policies in writing become less important as commonly-understood practices suffice. It also seems plausible that stars will chafe at the lack of upward movement, and will take other opportunities.

Low departure rates also belie the constant complaints about the lack of a career path (See my post of March 28, 2006 about reasons not to go in-house.) and compensation (See my post of July 11, 2006 on how in-house compensation stayed flat in the UK.). Law departments suffer body blows to their knowledge base when a veteran retires (See my posts of June 12, 2005 and March 16, 2006 about loss of knowledge.).

An article, Fin. Times, Aug. 11, 2006 at 5, discusses employee motivation, and specifically engagement (See my posts of June 28, 2005 on disengagement levels among general counsel; April 3, 2005 on the engagement index of Stanton Marris; and Nov. 19, 2005 on the difference between engagement and satisfaction.). It states that “having an ‘engaged’ workforce — a step beyond employee satisfaction or commitment — has been shown to improve the bottom line.” Other research shows that the immediate supervisors and colleagues are crucial in determining an individual’s engagement level.

It seems intuitively true that higher levels of engagement march along with higher levels of performance. As with all surveys of employees, however, measurement is only the first step. The results need to lead to actions, a much harder task than completing the survey, to bring real value.

A company’s most fundamental expression of its values is its Code of Conduct. That document needs not only to lay out what proper behavior is expected of employees but also to guide enforcement. The general counsel has much to say about the content, format, and phrasing of the Code of Conduct.

For example, one decision for a global company is the number of languages in which to publish the code, as well as the mechanisms for explaining and enforcing its tenets (See my post of July 5, 2006 on on-line legal and compliance training tools.). A general counsel might opine on whether different versions of the code should apply to different regions. Another decision is whether employees must acknowledge that they have received a copy of the code; the further step being where employees attest that they have read and understand the policy and are committed to following it.

Perhaps the only peer of “strategy” in terms of an outpouring of books, articles, and conferences is “leadership.” Everyone professes to want it but there’s no consensus as to what it is or how to foster it.

In truth, the opportunities for dramatic leadership in law departments are rare and vest almost entirely in the top lawyer (See my posts of May 4, 2005 bemoaning the lack of intramural creativity, July 21, 2005 on the low value departments place on law firm creativity, and Oct. 30, 2005 about another survey corroborating this point; April 5, 2005 on law department size and correlation to creativity; and June 15, 2006 on executive creativity.). In most law departments of less than 10 lawyers, only the general counsel can set a new course or transform the status quo (See my post of May 16, 2006 on left-brain vs. right brain and leadership notions; and May 31, 2006 on emergent initiatives.).

To make a decision is rarely to be a leader (See my post of Aug. 24, 2006 on decision-making; and Aug. 28, 2006 on the six hats of decision-making.). Leadership, to deserve the name, needs to be broader, tougher, and more strategic.

The rank and file in a law department look to the general counsel to be their advocate and spokesperson (See my post of Oct. 6, 2006 about leadership in law departments.). Overt forms of being on point include when the general counsel goes to the mat for in-house counsel on compensation, negotiates budget increases or staves off cuts, gets lawyers promoted to the officer level (See my post of Feb. 28, 2006 on officer titles.), protects the law group from enervating administrivia, obtains dispensations from restrictions on travel, and many other forms.

So why should I stop? Other forms of visible promotion of the department include publication of newsletters (See my post of Sept. 4, 2006.) and favorable publicity for the department (See my post of June 30, 2006 about public relations for law departments.) and success at getting the department’s lawyers in front of senior corporate executives.

It is hard enough to find and lure legal talent; it is harder to do so if the process takes months to complete. I know of one company that has lawyer candidates complete a long psychological exam and spend 45 minutes on the phone with a psychologist (See my post of April 27, 2006 on psychometrics and references cited.).

Yes, everyone talks about how important it is to take pains to hire carefully, but it is painful in a different way to endure long delays in the hiring process and thereby lose good candidates. The law department might find it politically difficult to grease the HR glacier, but it is necessary (See my post of Nov. 8, 2005 on the contributions of HR reps.).

The Fin. Times, July 11, 2006 at 10 refers to Prof. Richard Sennett, a professor the London School of Economics. Sennet argues that many professional people in corporations are judged according to their position in an occupational hierarchy, not by the quality of their craft. You are assessed as a VP and Associate GC, with attendant expectations, rather than as a consummate negotiator and drafter of acquisition agreements.

Stennet further believes that professionals, such as lawyers, are motivated to do a good job for its own sake, rather than just to meet a production target. A patent lawyer strives to prepare excellent applications, not hit a goal of 4.5 apps/month. If you remove from them their craftsmanship, morale plummets. I agree with his analysis, and regret that to the degree Stennet is correct, it is harder to manage in-house lawyers.