Articles Posted in Talent

“About 23 percent of businesses in this country offer paid or unpaid sabbaticals, according to a 2005 report from the Society for Human Resources Management,” according to the NY Times, April 22, 2006, at C6. Of that quarter, 17 percent offer unpaid sabbaticals, 6 percent paid (See my post of April 1, 2005 raising the idea of sabbaticals.).

Several companies listed in the article have substantial law departments – McDonald’s, Nike, Goldman Sachs, Silicon Graphics, Intel – but I have never heard of one of their in-house lawyers who has taken such a leave. At Intel, after seven years the lawyer is given eight weeks of paid leave, in addition to vacation. At McDonald’s, the same offer is available, but after ten years of work.

Some law department lawyers who work for companies that support sabbaticals, such as Timberland, would have to work with a nonprofit group of their choice with whom they have had a prior relationship. At other companies, the lawyer can do whatever the lawyer chooses to do.

While the general counsel of Nestle USA, Kristin Adrian, believes that law firm experience helps a general counsel later on manage firms, she also believes “that one should work in-house for a period of time before assuming the general counsel role,” inform: Life Law, & Business, Issue 1 at 5.

Without equivocation, I can state “maybe.” Ben Heineman would certainly disagree, for starters, and I just think no one can prove the right or wrong of Adrian’s view (See my post of March 26, 2005 on the importance of new blood.).

If we could attach a stressometer to an archetypal GC who is the only in-house counsel and do the same to an archetypal Deputy GC who counsels a multi-billion dollar business unit and the 20 other lawyers who serve it, whose stress needle would most often go red? Can we speculate on the two position’s relative legal complexity, ulcers, conflicting demands, workload, and other stressors?

As Truman knew, nothing matches sitting where the buck stops, but the lead lawyer for a large business unit sits where a ton of change stops. They have no board issues, no CEO demands (but business unit President demands), no securities work or SOX compliance however, so obviously the pressures are different; still, it’s hard for me to give the clear nod to the solo GC for higher stress than the deputy who deals with complex people management, wide-ranging legal issues, and far more revenue at stake.

Given 10 choices of “least rewarding aspect of your job,” the 400 plus in-house attorneys responded to an online survey in December 2005 most frequently picked “career advancement opportunities” (39%). As reported in InsideCounsel, March 2006 at 48, the other downsides to an in-house career they ranked were “managing a budget” (16% selected), “company culture” (12%), “benefits package” (12%), “managing people” (6%), “supervisors” (6%), “dealing with outside counsel” (4%), “colleagues” (2%), “type of legal work” (2%), and “working with business people” (1%).

A second question asked what would motivate them to seek new employment. “Advance my career” (28%), “make more money” (27%), “work for a better company” (5%), “acquire greater job security” (5%), “work in a more interesting industry” (4%), “reduce my workload” (3%), “none. I am fully satisfied.” (19%), and “other” (9%) were the findings. I could imagine a choice for location or spousal migration.

Compare the downsides of inside to the upsides of leaving for another law department. Career advancement tops both lists. It’s a “slow probability” inside and the new employer can remedy it. Making more money was not asked about on the downside question, but “benefits package” was number four on that list. Perhaps “culture” on the downside partly overlaps with “work for a better company” and “job security” as a lure to leave, but the match is imperfect. Work overload as a reason to leave has no counterpart on the downside list, which is an unfortunate omission. Likewise, the criticisms list left no opportunity to say, “None. I am fully satisfied.”

From nine choices an online survey in December 2005 offered that described in-house advantages, 400 plus corporate attorneys chose three as almost equally strong: “work hours,” “exposure to the business side” (both at 25%), and “variety of legal work” (22%). The other selections, as reported in InsideCounsel, March 2006 at 51,were “working for one client” (11%), “benefits package” (5%), “company culture” (4%), “colleagues” (3% — take that, collegiality!), “management opportunities” (2%), and “career advancement opportunities/salary/perks” (3% combined).

“Working for one client” may reflect the glow of not having to keep track of time, and possibly not having to sell work (unlike for partners in private practice). It is odd that work hours get such applause when the same survey revealed that 52 percent of the respondents said they work 41-50 hours a week, and 38 percent of them reported 51-60 hours a week. Those self-reported hours probably ought to come down to earth a bit.

“Management opportunities” could mean to some respondents the opportunity to manage others in the law department, or it could mean the opportunity to move into a management role outside the legal department.

Given 10 choices on a question asking about the “least rewarding aspect of your job,” more than 400 in-house attorneys who responded to an online survey in December 2005 pointed the finger the most (39% of the time) at “career advancement opportunities.” As reported in InsideCounsel, March 2006 at 48, the other downsides to an in-house career were “managing a budget” (16% selected it), “company culture” (12%), “benefits package” (12%), “managing people” (6%), “supervisors” (6%), “dealing with outside counsel” (4%), “colleagues” (2%), “type of legal work” (2%), and “working with business people” (1%).

I want to pick at this selection.

Most multiple-choice questions leave off some choices, but make up for it with “other” (See my post of Dec. 20, 2005 on methodology and multiple-choice surveys.) This one did not. I would have thought the survey would have asked about “cash base and bonus” instead of only “benefits.” I also would have thought it legitimate to ask about something along the lines of “tension between being a cop and a counselor” or “inadequate support resources.” Two more critiques. Few in-house counsel manage budgets, and the common complaint isn’t about type of legal work but amount of legal work.

One wonders about the internal inconsistency of seeking leaders among the group that is known for being risk-adverse (See my post of Oct. 18, 2005 on “scheissenbedauern,” which translates as “I’m in fact sorry the thing didn’t blow up, like I predicted.”).

A hallmark of a good leader is a willingness to take chances, to move forward when much information is not known, and to act even though something might go wrong (See my post of Jan. 16, 2006 on risk aversion and the principle-agent problem.).

Lawyers, by personality, education or career prone to caution, make barren ground for the seeds of leadership. It’s a wonder general counsel – classic examples of the Peter Principal as far as management and leadership? – can direct their departments.

How do I staff thee? Let me count the ways.

In addition to full-time employees, law departments can have

(1) part-time employees;

Research summarized in the New York Times, April 6, 2006 at C3, confirms what may seem intuitively plain: “Being good looking seems to be strongly associated with self-confidence, a trait that is apparently attractive to employers.” To compound this advantage in the contest of physiognomy, let’s face it, “employers overestimated the productivity of beautiful people.”

This reminds me of the studies that show that height above normal correlates with higher income.

The point is that when you interview to fill a position in your law department, look carefully at your possible bias for particular physical specimens. Legal prowess isn’t only skin deep.