Articles Posted in Talent

One law department I consulted to arranges monthly lunches for its members.  The lunches are in a conference room, and the department pays for sodas and some dessert.  People who attend bring their own lunches. 

The department sometimes uses the lunches for very short presentations by a lawyer or paralegal about matters they were working on.  This allows others in the department to get a sense of what is going on.  Primarily, though, the department’s managers see this small investment as a way to create a more congenial environment, to punch some holes in the silos, and to help people to get to know each other.

General Counsel certainly don’t publicize it when they retain a coach for themselves.  The truth probably is that few do.  This is remarkable because the position has enormous pressures and the chief legal officer may not have a member of the department (or elsewhere within the company) to which he or she can confide.  More important, the position of power may warp the person’s sense of self-importance, invulnerability, and mastery.

An independent coach for the top lawyer, not someone who works within the company, can provide an antidote.  A coach can observe and recommend improvements for leadership styles, for personality traits, for career progression, and for better self-awareness.  Many general counsel and their law departments would benefit from the guidance of an experienced coach.

A very large law department of a company headquartered in New York City recently decided to replace its accomplished, long-serving administrator, who took another administrative position in the company, by a lawyer from the department. The lawyer will hold that position for two years and then rotate out, replaced by another lawyer. 

This innovative idea has many benefits for the law department, although it has downsides, too: will there be lawyers who want to take on the tasks; will there be continuity of administrative policies, will the staff in the administrative group take to the rotating leadership?

The Department of Law of the City and County of Denver posted its 2003 Employee Attitude Survey Results.  The 37-pager offers much to consider.  For instance, only 29% (54) of the 185-person Department of Law completed the web-based survey.  And, of those 54, about 60% of them were lawyers.  Those in the occupational groups of “general administrative,” “support services,” and “clerical” combined for about the same number as the lawyer total. 

Perhaps apathy dampens the participation rates of non-lawyers: “Nothing will change for us and we don’t really count,” they may think.  Mix in a bit of misunderstanding of the survey and its purposes to further hold back their responding.  Perhaps some language barriers, or even worries about confidentiality have a chilling effect.

In sum, the overall participation rate falls below what a law department should expect, of both lawyers and non-lawyers.  A department should assuage these concerns and promote the importance of everyone taking part in employee morale and values surveys.

For years, I have said in speeches that if a law department can foresee $400,000 or more a year being spent on outside counsel in an area of law, it should consider hiring a lawyer inside. 

I think that statement is supportable, but there are more nuances.  Cost management is not the only goal.  You need quality lawyers and they need to keep busy at work appropriate for their value.  There may be headcount constraints that moot the qualitative argument.  The person needs to report to somebody and that may cause complexities.  Perhaps the economic terms with the law firm can improve. 

The rule of thumb serves as a trigger for thinking about substituting in-house talent for outside counsel, but it leaves unanswered harder questions underneath.

Stanton Marris, a British consultancy (www.stantonmarris.com), has developed an Energy Index® questionnaire.  As I understand it, if a law department used the questionnaire, it would have its members rate on a six-point scale how important and how true are a number of statements.  Each statement bears on one of the four components that set the energy level of an organization.  These four components (the 4Cs) are connection, content, context, and climate – all explained by Stanton Marris in a brochure they distribute free of charge.

The compiled results would show not only what is most important in energizing a department but also where the widest gaps lie between importance and reality.  Among other uses, a law department could use this instrument and discuss its results at a retreat or offsite or it could assess the effectiveness of a leadership development program over time.  It is a form of employee satisfaction survey.

Mark Hulbert, in the NY Times (April 27, 2005 at BU8), cited research that compared very successful to less successful companies in similar industries and circumstances.  The “[less successful] companies … were far more likely to appoint white knights as their chief executives.”  By contrast, the CEOs of more than 90% of the successful companies, those that transformed themselves from good to great, were promoted from within.

The same results likely play out in law departments: departments fare better over time, in terms of benchmarks like total legal spending as a percentage of revenue as well as qualitative assessments like collegiality and teamwork, when they promote someone from within.  That person will know the company, know the qualities of former peers, and know what ought to be done to improve the department.  A white knight starts in complete ignorance and quite likely faces resentment by those who were passed over.

In my recent article (http://www.hildebrandt.com/Consultant.aspx?Ppl_ID=3870) I described ten important steps for general counsel to take in preparation for appointing a successor to their position.

The article made me wonder why legal departments don’t institute programs for sabbaticals.  If a lawyer or paralegal has served well for five or seven years, why not allow them to take three months of paid time off?  If tuition reimbursement programs are widespread, why not opportunities for nourishment of self in a different form?  A sabbatical program could increase retention rates and allow other people to step into temporary positions and show their stuff.  If compensation dollars and promotions are tight, perhaps a sabbatical program can provide an alternative form of recognition. 

Researching my book, Client Satisfaction for Law Departments, I concluded that many more law departments measure their clients’ attitudes than measure their employees’ attitudes.  Odd, because contented employees are likely to serve their customers (clients) better (or so I surmise).  They are more likely to go the extra yard, work with the company longer and thus understand its business better, and create an atmosphere that lures talent to join and stay. 

In fact, a general counsel can do more to increase the work-life enjoyment within the department than to bring smiles to the faces of clients.  Also, client surveys are an imposition, while asking members of the department to give feedback about criticisms and kudos may well appeal to them. They get to voice their displeasures and perhaps improve their working conditions. Thus, I remain perplexed about the imbalance in frequency of the two kinds of satisfaction surveys.  The explanation may be that law department managers see more payoff from pleasing their clients than themselves.

Sophisticated general counsel do what must be done to have capable successors.  Ideally, when the GC retires or leaves, the law department has one or more lawyers who can put on the crown.  Internal succession is the best, I believe.

If there are no capable or acceptable internal candidates, the company must bring in someone from outside – a riskier decision.  However, if the company realizes that there must be significant change in the law department, an outsider is more likely to be able to make major changes.   

My conclusion: Groom internal successors, at all levels, but especially for the general counsel position; favor outside successors if the law department needs substantial improvement or redirection.