Articles Posted in Thinking

I very much liked the interview of Prof. John Kotter in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Oct. 2010, at 129. He outlines lessons from his latest book about why good ideas suffer withering attacks and often succumb.

The short piece made me realize that a creative idea popping up in a legal department means nothing unless it is translated into meaningful and advantageous change. To the point of the interview, the new idea almost always has to run a gauntlet of critics and nay-sayers. Change climbs a steep and rocky path and good ideas often stumble or tumble off.

This blog offers plenty of thoughts on creativity and others on implementation (See my post of Oct. 29, 2006: creativity with 11 references, Sept. 26, 2009: creativity with 13 references and 2 metaposts; Dec. 16, 2005: innovation with 7 references; and Oct. 4, 2009: innovation with 20 references.). It offers fewer thoughts on over-coming resistance. Everything in the trade press boasts triumphs, never suffocation of fresh ideas.

An article in the Sloan Mgt. Rev., Fall 2010 at 51, contrasts what it calls the “frequentist” method for risk management (also called “objectivist”) with the Bayesian method (also called “subjectivist”). Frequentists predict risks based on probabilities obtained from repetitive historical data. For example, in a legal department an objectivist would assess the likelihood of risk by looking at the incidence of cases of a certain kind, or billings by law firms, or claims that are resolved before litigation. They believe the physical world gives you all the data you need to quantify risk.

Bayesians “consider risk to be in part a judgment of the observer, or a property of the observation process, and not solely a function of the physical world.” A Bayesian takes trend data and complements it with judgment and experience. On trends of particular cases, this might mix in understanding of changes in the law or rules of civil procedure or an aggressive cabal of plaintiff’s lawyers. For billings of law firms, the Bayesian would consider seasonality, changes in partners at major firms, and sales of units of the company.

According to the authors, the objective view has three major shortcomings. With its reliance on historical data it does poorly when addressing issues where historical data is lacking or misleading. Second, it allows little input for judgment. Third, it can produce a false sense of security because it seemingly implies scientific accuracy, and thus may encourage excessive risk taking.

A thoughtful article in Wired, Oct. 2010 at 66, praises drawing pictures (or exploiting other forms of visualization) to convey complex ideas – exactly the sort that in-house counsel often deal with when multiple considerations bear on a takeover, a tax restructuring, a licensing decision, or an investment in software. Narrative text and linear lists of considerations falter; if you want everyone to see all the moving parts and have the same mental model of their connections, do it with a picture.

Since my last metaposts on visualization tools, I have accumulated several more posts (See my post of Sept. 28, 2008: lawyers are less comfortable with images than with words; Jan. 15, 2009: box-and-whisker plots; March 1, 2009: cartograms; March 20, 2009 #1: Tableau data visualization software; March 26, 2009: offshore data analytics; July 10, 2009: plotlines add much more to timelines; Feb. 10, 2010: business intelligence, data mining, portals draw on data portrayal; and June 29, 2010: Codean software for cross references.).

Verbal ability and written precision seem to most lawyers the tools of success, but an ability to rollout a visual summary of a situation can help greatly See my post of May 15, 2009: idea relationship software with 6 references; May 7, 2008: methods to portray data with 9 references; 22 cited in one; and May 19, 2009: dashboards with 6 references.).

My former colleague at Hildebrandt, Mark Sirkin misrkin@hildebrandt.com, published a clear and useful article about the human brain – “a user’s guide” – in the NYSBA J. Sept. 2010 at 38. How well in-house lawyers understand the brain and effectively use their own makes an enormous difference.

Sirkin demolishes the myth of multi-tasking. Further, as he memorably puts it, scanning email while you talk to someone is “bad manners and bad neuroscience”(See my post of Aug. 26, 2009: trying to do too many things at once with 8 references and 1 metapost.).

Sirkin also gives sound advice on the care and feeding of brains. He lists websites that provide brain training: www.positscience.com, www.lumosity.com, and www.cogmed.com/program. Along with food, rest, and brain exercise, Sirkin recommends relaxation techniques such as “yoga, tai chi, meditation or mindfulness, and biofeedback.” To my amazement, given that this blog has 5,730 posts, not one mentions any of those techniques! Stress lurks around many in-house desks, so these could be useful.

MIT Sloan Mg. Rev., Summer 2010 at 73, extols the benefits that accrue when companies match an experienced person with software that helps their decision making. “Evidence-based decision making,” as the article refers to it, can contribute even in unstructured decision contexts. The day will come when in-house counsel routinely draw on checklists, for example, to prompt speedy and comprehensive analysis (See my post of Jan. 26, 2010: checklists with 9 references.). Other forms of decisional software will become more familiar and easier to use.

The combination of the respective abilities of wetware and software: be aware (See my post of Sept. 4, 2005: computers can assist decision-makers; April 7, 2006: analytical software to assist experts; Oct. 21, 2009: collective of departments and shared decision software; Sept. 29, 2006: augmented-cognition software; Feb. 22, 2009: software to depict and quantify decisions; and Feb. 10, 2010: a future of software that helps in-house counsel make decisions on data.).

All of my definitions are efforts to create constructs (See my post of July 19, 2010: comparing the constructs of risk and value.). For the past five years I have assiduously explained what various terms mean and collected those attempts (See my post of April 8, 2009: five metaposts and references to a total of 96 defined terms defined; and July 19, 2009: eleven more definitions.). At times I have balked at saying what terms mean (See my post of Aug. 24, 2009: four crucial but ill-defined words: complexity, risk, quality, and value.). Mostly, however, the shapeless words I bump into don’t end and readers deserve explanations and distinctions.

This latest batch includes 31 definitions in 22 posts (See my post of June 1, 2009: accruals; May 24, 2010: for surveys, anonymous and confidential; Nov. 10, 2009: consumer surplus; Feb. 25, 2010: contract lawyer and temp lawyer; April 2, 2009: cross selling; Aug. 24, 2009: dedicated IT support; Jan. 25, 2010: fixed vs. flat fee; Oct. 15, 2009: global law department; Jan. 4, 2010: high-potential employee; Oct. 4, 2009: innovation; June 16, 2010: for surveys, litigation; March 25, 2009: local counsel; March 23, 2009: primary law firm; Feb. 9, 2010: process in LPO usage; Dec. 21, 2009 #4: purchase power parity; April 8, 2009: regional law firms; July 31, 2009: revenue; Sept. 9, 2009: role clarity, division of labor, core competencies, delegation, resources, and processes; Oct. 29, 2009: strategic plan; Sept. 29, 2009: termination and turnover rates; Aug 10, 2009: transaction costs; and May 28, 2009: definition of wicked problems.).

Richard Ogle, Smart World: Breakthrough Creativity and the New Science of Ideas (Harv. Bus. School 2007) at 15, cites research that surprises me. “Beyond the level of 115 [IQ], there is no observable correlation between intelligence and creativity.”

I have assumed that smarter people, whatever being smart entails, are more likely to come up with novel ideas. Most of my posts on creativity and innovation take that for granted (See my post of May 24, 2010: innovation and creativity with 6 metaposts.).
https://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/hyperpost-on-innovation-and-creativity-six-metaposts-on-originality/ Apparently I created that mis-connection. Someone with a mean streak could say I have not been so smart.

A recent article lists more than 40 software tools claimed to be able to support and manage innovation. The article is in the MIT Sloan Mgt. Rev., Summer 2010 at 45, and it breaks the software into four broad categories and 14 types thereunder. Being ignorant about many of the offerings, I will simply list a number of them that are new to me.

Under the category “Analysis” and the type “Process Management,” there are three examples that “simulate and assess process design alternatives”: Lombardi, Metastorm, and BPM.

Under the category “Collaboration” and type “Social Networking” are listed PHPizabi, Relenet, and “linked expert blogs on specialized subjects.” What is the notion of “linked” in at last one? Under the same category but the type “Document Management/Portal” is Atlassian Confluence.

Attorneys in corporations often feel under stress so it is useful to understand more about how stress affects decisions. A number of points come out of an article in Acad. Mgt. J., July 2005 at 497. Time pressures seem to alter the behavior of decision-makers by narrowing how much attention they devote to all the information available. It doesn’t mean when quickness is paramount that it degrades the decision-making process, it means people spend less time on information search.

Second, “there is little evidence that the stress response itself – or its sequelae (e.g., arousal) – degrades the decision-making process.” To the contrary, some adrenaline boosts concentration and decisiveness. Boredom may cause sloppy judgment more than electric alertness.

Last, “rather than impairing the effectiveness of the decision-making process, high job demands should be seen as increasing the difficulty of the decision task itself.” Hard calls are hard calls so its misleading to foist errors made making them on stress. The tough judgment call is difficult (See my post of May 18, 2007: stress and pressure with 7 references; and June 11, 2008: stress with 18 references.).

Posts on outside counsel predominate but a chunk of the selected posts have to do with thinking. (Email me rees@reesmorrison.com if you would like the entire 28-page collection.) That a dozen of the topics cluster that way set me thinking.

First, the most core of core competencies for in-house lawyers is to think well. Without clear, complete, and compelling thought, to hope for career success is stupid.

Second, ideas matter for those who manage legal functions and this blog succeeds only to the extent that the ideas it shares find homes. This blog doesn’t traffic in descriptive detail nor in cuteness about Marley dogs. It is not gossipy nor late breaking on politics, celebrities, sports or food. No cult of personality pervades. Instead, this blog presents ideas that general counsel can use in their departments. It is unabashedly intellectual in the sense that what it offers are distilled managerial concepts.