Articles Posted in Thinking

People process the effects of inflation poorly, which gives rise to what economists call the “money illusion.” According to Scientific Am., Vol. 301, July 2009 at 78, as our brains have evolved we are not able to process effectively the dilutive effect of inflation. If billing rates of partners shock in-house counsel, their ventromedial prefrontal cortex (fetchingly dubbed the VMPFC) is to blame. It does not accurately take account of the fact that the nominal rate is high but the real cost is lower because of inflation.

Anyway, while on the topic of neuroeconomics – the study of the brain and how people process financial information – I would not want to short-change the nucleus accumbens, the area of the brain researchers believe is the seat of greed.

One problem with brainstorming is that it forces the process of creating new ideas. “Here we are, it’s 9:30 AM, so get wild!” Few minds do breakthrough somersaults on demand (See my post of Feb. 20, 2007: sleep on it to make a good decision.).

Reverse brainstorming takes a different approach. Meet to lay out the problem and then urge people to think about the problem and possible solutions during the days until the next meeting. If any ideas come to them, they should write them down. At the next session, the members bring together those thoughts and consider them.

In summary, Rotman Mag., Winter 2009 at 71, explains that “reverse brainstorming, then, is a meeting to collect brainstorming ideas, rather than create them” (See my post of Dec. 31, 2008: brainstorming with 5 references; Jan. 4, 2009: electronic brainstorming with decision support software; April 6, 2009: brain-writing 6-3-5; and April 27, 2009: eleven suggestions for how to brainstorm.).

The Rotman Mag., Winter 2009 is devoted to “wicked problems.” One article (at 19) sets out six characteristics of wicked problems, all of which together suggest that for managers of sizeable internal legal functions wicked problems abound.

“You don’t understand the problem until you have developed a solution. Every solution that is offered exposes new aspects of the problem, requiring further adjustments to the potential solutions. There is no definitive statement of ‘the problem’; these problems are ill structured and feature an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints.” Just think of the challenge of “reducing legal expenses.”

“There is no stopping rule. Since there is no definitive ‘the problem,’ the results are no definitive ‘the solution.’ The problem-solving process ends when you run out of resources such as time, money or energy, not an optimal solution emerges.” Figuring out best practices comes to mind as an example (See my post of March 20, 2009: seven reasons why I question best practices.).

Two previous posts outlined five suggestions for how best to conduct brainstorming sessions (See my post of Oct. 30, 2006: rules, facilitator, preparation; and Nov. 25, 2006: private ideas before and mull afterwards.):

1. Have rules, such as an agenda and guidelines for how to participate
2. Engage a trained facilitator from outside,

If you have a large meeting, perhaps a Town Hall or an off-site gathering, it may be useful to break the plenary group into smaller groups. The smaller groups can push the discussion ahead and then report back to the larger group. Here are some suggestions for how to succeed with break-outs (See my post of Feb. 12, 2008: retreats and conferences with 8 references.).

1. Have sufficient rooms or locations for the splinter groups; be mindful of the noise that groups make so don’t locate them too closely together.

2. While everyone is still in the full group, put the logistics up on the screen or an easel. Clearly, slowly, explain who should meet where, how long to meet, the need to choose a spokesperson, and other details – and then repeat them. Ask for questions.

The subject of knowledge, the most important asset of an in-house lawyer, ultimately reduces to philosophical ruminations. Ruminations on my part have sometimes resulted in posts on this blog. A few draw on ideas from individual philosophers (See my post of Aug. 27, 2008: John Rawls’ original position; March 19, 2006: Willard Quine and the fact/value dichotomy; and Oct. 10, 2008: Michel Foucault on power.).

For other posts, broad philosophical ideas shape them (See my post of Sept. 22, 2005: our inability to comprehend complexity; Sept. 22, 2008: post-modernism and its tenets; Feb. 22, 2009: linguistic philosophy of “action verbs”; Sept. 29, 2006: four concepts from philosophy as they apply to law department management; April 2, 2009 #4: special pleading; and Feb. 21, 2007: under-determination theory.).

I have also written about a philosophical field, ethics (See my post of May 23, 2008: values with 12 references.).

Management concepts are broad ideas I chose and ranked ten of them in one post (See my post of Feb. 1, 2009: ten most important concepts: client, decisions, information flow, objectivity, productivity, quality, risk, structure, talent, and value) and then bit off the next ten (See my post of April 5, 2009: benchmarks, collaboration (teamwork), delegation, empowerment, knowledge management, processes, professional development (CLE), priorities, recognition and rewards, and technology (software).).

Other management concepts relevant to general counsel include alignment, accountability, authority, communication, conflicts of interest, evaluation, global, infrastructure, high performer, leadership and management, matter, mistake, priorities [core comp], reporting, satisfaction, strategic, systems, and tools.

Possibly this is intellectual navel-gazing (See my post of July 14, 2008: no useful distinction between words and concepts; and June 13, 2006: words can be defined but concepts must be interpreted;.). Perhaps, but this series is about clarity of thought and expression (See my post of Nov. 26, 2006: memes; Aug. 29, 2008: professionals may not be intellectuals; Sept. 21, 2008: concepts hover in a multi-dimensional space; Sept. 22, 2008: post-modernism; April 9, 2008: twins, braids, and DNA; June 22, 2008: differences between tools, processes, and concepts; Jan. 4, 2009: contrasting pairs of thematic concepts; and Jan. 1, 2008: we hypostatize and simplify complex ideas.).

Any blogger who uses hendiadys (a rhetorical figure in which a complex idea is expressed by two words connected by a copulative conjunction) is a blogger after my heart and soul (1).

Willem Wiggers, on his blog WeAgree, started a post with this unusual word, so I picked up the glove and challenge and tried my hand and fingers at a few hendiadyses.

Law departments are the brains and brawn (2) of many companies, ready and willing (3) to handle everything from complex issues to simple NDAs. The firms they select are head and shoulders (4) above competitor firms and the service they provide is fast and furious (5). Partners at law firms, the high and mighty (5), give counsel and advice (6) to the inside lawyers, those brave and true (7).

Brainwriting 6-3-5 alters classic brainstorming in ways that encourage equal participation from all team members by having them write their ideas rather than say them. The technique is described in David Silverstein, Philip Samuel, and Neil DeCarlo, The Innovator’s Toolkit: 50+ Techniques for Predictable and Sustainable Organic Growth (Wiley 2009) at 101. The name of the technique comes from its essential idea: six people each write down three ideas in five minutes and keep going. A focus group in a law department would do well with this tool with a slightly larger or smaller number of people.

Let’s try as an example the problem of how to speed up payment of invoices to qualify for a prompt payment discount. Each person in a group of six (more or less) takes five minutes to write on a worksheet three ideas for how to solve that problem. The facilitator then passes the worksheets randomly to the next person who can either add three new ideas, build on any of the ideas listed, or do both. Repeat that cycle until every participant has worked on every worksheet, which could generate as many as 108 ideas (6 people times 6 worksheets times 3 ideas).

The final step as a group is to discuss, clarify, refine, and combine similar ideas, then select those you wish to pursue further (See my post of Dec. 31, 2008: brainstorming with 5 references.).

A portion of the 4,200 posts on this blog are cerebral. For example, the ones I picked for this collection touch on deep and deeply significant ideas.

Perhaps the most intellectually significant idea dealt with by this blog is neuroscience (See my post of June 22, 2008: neuroscience with 32 references.).

Three other topics for deep thinkers have to do with knowledge: the fallacy of induction; post-modernist beliefs, and no best practices (Sept. 22, 2008: post-modernism and law department management; Aug. 22, 2006: fallacy of induction; and Feb.14, 2009: best practices with 24 references and one metapost.).