Articles Posted in Talent

Poor Peter. General counsel across the land have repented that they promoted a solid practicing lawyer to become an ill-suited manager. Or the capable manager of a practice area, they promoted to a direct-report position with more scope – and too many opportunities to stumble.

The Peter Principle, a cynical acknowledgement that sometimes people are promoted above their level of ability, plays out with Peters, Pauls, and Marys. Not everyone craves or deserves more responsibility; not everyone rises to the expectations of a promotion (See my post of March 16, 2006 about A positions and A players.). As John John Milton wrote, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”

A small announcement in Legal Week, July 27, 2006 at 6, harbors a hat trick of interesting promotions.

The new general counsel, Carl Krasik, will also have responsibility for government affairs (See my post of Aug. 8, 2006 on this trend in Europe.). As for the second point, the former general counsel will take on the role of “special counsel to the chairman.” Is that a genuine position or a retirement perk? And third, the bank appointed its chief auditor to the role of deputy general counsel. Does that suggest that a former in-house lawyer left the department to head audit, and is now the prodigal returning?

Amidst all the publicity about diversity (See my posts of Sept. 4, 2005 about definitions; and Dec. 4, 2005 on minorities.), why don’t law departments take the following powerful position regarding diversity among the lawyers its outside counsel assign to its matters?

“Your law firm must use on our matters diverse lawyers in proportion to our department’s diversity percentages.” That insistence on a close approximation (or better) pushes the law department to define who is diverse, hire and retain a diverse group of lawyers, and exemplify the principles it demands of its external lawyers (See my post of March 17, 2006 about in-house hypocrisy.).

Previous posts have considered distinctions between titles: Assistant and Associate General Counsel (Nov. 8, 2005; March 23, 2006 for below those levels; June 16, 2006 #1 for a contrary view; and June 15, 2006 for international titles), secretary and administrative assistant (May 17, 2006), officer designations (Feb. 28, 2006), and legal assistant or paralegal (Aug. 21, 2005 and June 7, 2006).

For still another position, there are also a number of potential titles — the position of the non-lawyer manager for the department.

At Sara Lee Corp., that position is styled Vice President, Legal Operations & Administration. At VerizonBusiness the counterpart is Director of Operations, Legal and External Affairs. The common term, Administrator, conveys less breath and authority than the impressive titles from Sara Lee and VerizonBusiness. The title with the least stature for the function (See my post of Aug. 1, 2006 for a view of lawyers as administrators.) is that of Office Manager.

In 2003, two women professors analyzed 45 studies of gender differences in leadership styles. According to the NYTimes, June 25, 2006 at WK3, “women managers tended to be — on average — more collaborative than men, more encouraging to subordinates, more likely to include them in decisions. Men were more likely to lead by top-down command, or to be strictly hands-off, distant.” (See my posts of Jan. 14, 2006 regarding cognitive diversity; Dec. 4, 2005 about diversity efforts not aimed at women; April 18, 2005 on some Meyers-Briggs gender differences; and Dec. 5, 2005 on other gender differences between executives.).

In the not too distant future, as many women as men will be heads of legal departments. All to the good! The authors add that “women score higher on transformational leadership, modeling good behavior, working with people, letting people know when they’re doing a good job.”

Scores of search firms (aka headhunters) serve law departments. Despite my teasing post of Oct. 26, 2005 on sources of law department lawyers and a more recent factoid on June 27, 2006 about 5 percent of hires coming through recruiters, I suspect that at the high end of law department hires search firms carry most of the water.

These firms have databases of potential recruits and they preserve the confidentiality of the hiring law department, they sift through piles of resumes and call contacts to interview them, they have a sense of market compensation and are able to compare positions, they are trained to assess people and they can help wavering candidates. Sometimes search firms even provide ancillary services along the lines of consulting.

The other side of the ledger points out that they typically charge a third or so of the first-year salary of recruits they find. Second, they might recruit from your law department, based on what they have learned. Third, you have to choose and work with one, which is akin to choosing a law firm on a matter. And, search firms may try to cross-market work with other departments.

“Probably less than 5% of all in-house positions are filled through recruiters.” This quote came from a search firm’s website. At the general counsel level, or that of the direct reports to the general counsel, that percentage certainly climbs much higher.

The Infirmation site goes on to observe that in some cities there may be more then 200 legal recruiting firms. “Additionally, many recruiters demand “exclusivity” from their in-house clients meaning that the in-house client is prohibited from advertising the given position and must fill it through the recruiter only. This means that the recruiter has sole discretion to present and exclude candidates.”

What about unsolicited resumes and word of mouth by in-house lawyers?

Position descriptions can make structure rigid. They can slide into obsolescence and suck up time in unproductive tracking and fine-tuning. They might make it harder to fill positions or create new ones.

More positively, position descriptions help to clarify decision-making levels and employees’ roles. They pitch in during evaluations, promotions and succession planning, to the extent that the descriptions are up-to-date and people use the descriptions to figure out what they need to do to be promoted.

Bear in mind my libertarian views when I sense bureaucracy and administrative burdens. That said, position descriptions strike me as much more a reflexive need of HR than a useful tool that helps a general counsel find and nurture talent.

In a study, subjects spotted angry expressions more quickly than any of the other five basic expressions, and especially male anger. Even more, men picked out the angry expressions faster than women did, according to the summary in the Economist, June 10, 2006 at 82.

It may be that alpha male general counsel, for example, arouse more attention if they fume and erupt (See my posts on emotional intelligence of July 31, 2005; Sept. 25, 2005 as to its erosion with promotions; and Feb. 8, 2006 on its predictive power for success.).

A belief often expressed in U.S. law departments holds that lawyers oversees must have higher-ranking titles because when they deal with foreign business executives, the title makes the man, so to speak. Perhaps the diminished actual power of in-house counsel in foreign countries is counterbalanced by more magnificent titles (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006 on how to match lawyer titles to client levels.).

Different titles for the lawyers who have similar responsibilities, it goes without saying, causes internal dissension, even if circumstances such as overseas impressions justify it (See my post of Jan. 27, 2006 about whether to re-examine titles.).