Loyalty..

I've been talking with clients this week and the subject of loyalty has come up a few times.

In most cases, it has been barristers talking about the need for loyalty from their staff. For many sets - particularly for regional chambers - times are very difficult and there seems to be a general feeling that, if the staff were really loyal, they would be taking some of the pain too.

Sadly this simply reflects a failure of some barristers to recognise and appreciate the pain that staff have already taken. I can't think of many sets that have given staff a pay increase in a good few years. Many sets have reduced the number of staff they have - getting rid of 'non essential' staff (whatever that means). Staff are being asked to extend their jobs, to work longer, to do new and additional tasks. Few sets commit to training their staff and many like to police staff expenses to the point where it's not worth their time to try to claim.

Of course, it is the same in most industries, but that doesn't sound as if it builds much in the way of loyalty, does it? Loyalty works both ways and chambers must be loyal to their staff if they expect loyalty from them. If staff are to take pain at the moment, it should be on the understanding that they will share in the upside when that comes.

It's not just about the money, though. Members of chambers should take a few moments to consider the work done by their staff. Not just the clerks - all the staff. Your receptionist (assuming you have one) has to put up with callers in all sorts of moods and continue to show a calm and professional exterior no matter how angry or irritated they are inside. Your marketing and/or development staff keep coming up with new areas of practice and keep smiling when members complain that it's difficult or far away or just plain new. Your clerks keep slogging away no matter how they are shouted at and no matter the fact that any bad news is their fault.

Spend a little time building loyalty in your staff before demanding it from them - it will be better for everyone in the end.

Asking for Help

I speak with quite a number of lawyers who are running their firm or chambers for the first time and there is often a reluctance on their part to admit that there might be some areas lacking in terms of their skills or experience. 

This is, of course, completely understandable - they have, after all, only just been selected for the role they are new to and it is a difficult thing to admit one's weaknesses. It is, however, fantastically important to understand your own skills sets - and particularly to know which skills you are missing. Those areas in which you need some help.

There is nothing wrong in asking for help - I do it all the time. Anyone who knows me will be aware of my weaknesses in marketing myself. I understand some of what is necessary but I'm just not very good at it. I'm very lucky that I don't need to market my business too much - but I know that I need help every so often and so I have a list of people who I ask for their professional help and advice. 

Having asked for help, I am now very careful to listen to my expert. I too have fallen into the trap of saying "Yes I know" as someone who knows a great deal more than me in a specific area tells me something. I too have found it difficult to hear some criticism and to amend my own behaviour.

Having acknowledged a weakness it is vital to (a) find and expert and the (b) listen to them. That sounds very obvious - but I do spend a great deal of my professional life stating the obvious - that often seems to be my role.

I'm good at what I do - and so are other people, I'm no longer afraid to admit it. My name is Peter and sometimes I need some help!

Communication, Transparency & Democracy - and Leadership

Many sets of chambers and law firms suffer from a surfeit of democracy in a mis-guided belief that  this is the best and fairest way to make decisions. It rarely is.

There is a confusion in many of these sorts of organisations that communication means meetings, and that every member of the organisation should be involved in decisions. In discussions, most people will agree that they don't need to be involved in every decision - just the important ones…

This generally leads to a sclerosis - a situation where change becomes impossible and each new level of decision has to be preceded by open and full discussion leading to changes in the terms of reference for the decision leading to new demands for discussion since the context of the last discussion has changed…

It can be enormously frustrating for those caught up in it - even those causing the sclerosis can feel hugely frustrated.

The way out of this is through much less democracy - but balanced off with much more openness, more transparency and much more communication. So - let's say that a decision has to be made about leasing a building. A small group is appointed to examine the options and propose a single decision. The appointment of the group is made public within the organisation as is their job. The proposal they make is available not only to the Management Committee or Board but to the members of the organisation too.

Their proposal is examined by the appointed Management Committee or Board (having made it clear that a decision was going to be made) who make a decision. This decision is communicated to the organisation as soon as possible.

This process allows those who have strong opinions to make them and those who would like to get involved to get involved. It allows the body appointed to make decisions to make those decisions.

What I am talking about, of course, is Leadership - something sadly lacking in too many organisations. Leadership does involve good management, but it is more than that. It is taking a position, it is driving a message, it is communicating and, while listening, pushing the message to everyone in the organisation. It is about passion and belief in the way that the organisation needs to move. It is about taking a risk when necessary, being honest when 'fudging' the message would be easier, and about doing the difficult things yourself.

I didn't say it was easy...

Pride and Confidence

I have really enjoyed the first week of the Olympics. One of the most interesting features has been the way that London seems suddenly to have embraced the Games. As any regular readers will know, I spend  quite a lot of time in coffee houses, and there has been a palpable change from cynicism to confidence and even pride in the whole event.

In the weeks running up to the start, most people I spoke with were quite negative about the Games - complaining about the disruption which would be inevitable and worrying about how cliched and embarrassing the opening ceremony would be.

And then... Well the ceremony was, in my opinion, an absolute triumph. The right note was struck - there were plenty of 'wow' moments, there was great music, and the whole things was funny, anarchic, a little confusing and passionate. In fact, very British. The next morning I had so many conversations with people about how great it had been. There was a real sense of relief - but on the back of that was the beginning of confidence that these Games would be good, that London would look good, and that we would be impressive in front of the rest of the world. And on the back of that was pride.

The overwhelming impression now - after the first week - is pride. Every Londoner I speak with expresses this pride - the city looks great and we all seem to be helping visitors and enjoying the games.

This is how it can happen  in business too. The Brits are difficult people to get excited and engaged with an organisation. We tend to be cynical and generally sure that change is bad and that there is no point in trying to hard at anything since it will all end badly.

If we try, however, great things can happen. By staying positive and by constantly encouraging a good leader can bring people along with them. You can encourage engagement - and having engaged you can show your people that trying is alright and that success is possible. Soon, slowly, you will start to notice pride.

So there is the lesson. Keep trying. Keep trying hard. Keep positive. Keep encouraging. Success will come and with it will be pride. Once your organisation is positive and proud - it can be unstop-able!

Responsibility and Leadership

As regular readers will know, I have issues about the way that many law firms are managed - specifically that firms are, in general, run by "enthusiastic amateurs" who have an instinctive suspicion of those professional managers who do not have a law degree (merely having advanced degrees in management, for example).

I was reading the story of Halliwells over the weekend (see here for the least impartial view) and was struck at the difference in the outcomes for partners, junior legal staff and support staff. It would appear that many of the partners have simply walked into new roles at other firms while most of the others are currently - or will soon be - out of work. I am sure that most of them will secure new employment soon, but it is striking that it is the owners and managers of the business - those who presumably made the decisions that got the firm into its current mess - who are least affected by its failure.

It occurred to me, however, that I might have been thinking about this in the wrong way. I have been constantly comparing law firms with more commercial organisations when, perhaps, they are not business at all. Most are simply collections of solicitors who have no consideration of the firm as an entity and who seem to have no motivation to look after anyone but themselves.

Does this sound too cruel? Perhaps. I'm sure that I am describing one end of the continuum. I am, however, sure that many partners seem to have a poor understanding that the firm is larger than just them, their team or the legal staff. My recent analysis of 186 of the top 200 firms (as measured by "The Lawyer") showed that, on average, 45% of staff in those firms were non fee-earners (with the maximum being 64% and the minimum being 12.5%). That is a large number of people to look after. The partners in law firms have a responsibility for these people, even if many of them seem to think that this responsibility can be discharged by email...

So - the learning is this. Your firm is more than just you. It is a collection of real people who (in general) work hard to provide you with additional profits and who, in return, hope for consideration and respect - and a long term future. As a partner, you are asked to be a leader for the whole firm in return for which you are given wealth, status and security. It is not sensible to assume that you can have one without the other. Lead your firm, please.

Style and Substance

So - the great UK "Leaders' Debate" starts this evening. The leaders of the three main political parties will engage in a live TV debate (the first of three) in what is supposed to be the centre-piece of the forthcoming general election. Most of the media agencies have been gearing up for these debates for ages (take the BBC for example) - desperately trying to encourage the viewing/listening/reading public to believe that these debates are fantastically important to the outcome of the election. Sadly they are probably right.

I say sadly because I would really like the election to be decided by issues of policy and belief. I agree with Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News who said (sarcastically) today on his Twitter feed:

"Thankfully election TV debates are decided by serious issues like sweat, suits, looking at watches, put-downs and one-liners... Not trivia like policy, candour or answering a question"

In another part of their site (here), the BBC itemise the ways in which the debates could change the election and cite "The Gaffe" and "The Reaction Shot" amongst their list. I find this very depressing - that there is so little to choose - apparently - amongst the main parties that an accidental error in an 90 minute live broadcast or even a look of surprise or anger might swing the election. Are we electing the best party to run the country - and don't forget that we actually don't get to vote on the party leader unless we happen to be a member of that party (there is nothing to stop all three parties changing leader the day after the election) - or are we electing the best performer, the best trained actor or the main with the best media coach?

In an ideal world it should be both style and substance. In an ideal election we would all:

1. Know the policies of all the parties in detail
2. Be in a position to question both our own local candidate and party leaders
3. Have a good understanding of our own context and that of the country and understand the macro political/economic/social environment - and so be able to select the most appropriate leaders

All that being equal we might easily then choose the best looking candidate or the one with the best sense of humour or dress. I suggest however that the substance is more important than the style.

Of course, we are not engaged in an ideal election. The parties seem to assume that we all care about style and that the detail of the content - the real substance of their case - can wait until after the election. Vague promises seem to be the order of the day. It is, after all, about politics - not about common sense.

I had a discussion yesterday with a friend in a law firm who will soon be voting for a new Managing Partner. It would seem that he is in the same position as I am with the "Leaders' Debate". The candidates for Managing Partner (I was going to shorten that to MP but even I found it confusing) are already positioning themselves with regard to the wider partnership and political stances are being taken. Promises are being made and factions established. I suggested, naively it turns out, that the partners should ask the candidates about their leadership styles and about their managerial experience and plans. "Don't be ridiculous", I was told "it's not about skills - its about power". It is, apparently, about who has built the best power-base; who has the right "friends" and about who has made the right promises.

In law firms, as with the country as a whole, it would seem that (often) style is much more important than substance. Sadly even if I accept that this statement is true (and I suppose that I have to) - it is only true during an election. After the election it is the substance that will be important - the substance that will drag the economy out of the mess it is in and the substance that will position the country (or the firm) over the next four to five years. Surely, then, we should all be looking for our leaders a little more closely through the style at the substance?

Leading the Modern Firm

In my last post, I offered a manifesto for the modern law firm. I have received quite a few comments about this posting which have, in general, been positive. Since writing that post, I have been thinking about Leadership - partly, of course, because of the forthcoming General Election in which the main parties are already trying convince us to select them to Lead the country for the next few years.

Rob Goffee & Gareth Jones have a wonderful book entitled "Why Should Anyone Be Led By You" - I encourage you to read it. I wanted, however, to try to distill some principles of leadership and so I offer the list below condensed from the main writers on the subject of Leadership.

Leadership Requirements

1. Be Self Aware. Leaders must know their weaknesses and must strive to improve their own skills. Study, take classes, meet with other leaders, reflect.
2. Be an Example. As the organisation's Leader, you must be an exemplar of everything it stands for. Not only must they hear you saying what the firm must be, they must see you acting in the appropriate manner.
3. Know your People. You cannot Lead people you do not know and who do not know you. In large organisations it is, of course, almost impossible for you to know every one of your thousands of employees. Take the time, however, to know as many as you can and to speak with even more. Encourage your managers to know their staff. Be available to as many of your staff as possible.
4. Pass on Information. Leadership is about communicating. By explaining your plans you will be able to lead people forward rather than having to push them reluctantly from the back.
5. Be Responsible. Leaders will search out responsibility and should not hesitate to take responsibility for their actions. Encourage responsibility in the people you lead. Watch your managers explaining the strategy and the plan - that way you can be sure that they understand it thoroughly. Be as quick to take responsibility for the mess as you would be to take it for the success.
6. Make Decisions. We never have enough information to make a decision and any decision making process could probably be improved with more time and more data. Given. Decisions must be made, however, and the Leader must be able to make quality decisions in difficult circumstances. Be confident in your decision making - that might be enough to make it the right decision. Admit, however, when the decision is the wrong one or when the right decision has unfortunate consequences.

Leadership is difficult and every Leader is going to make a mess of things at some point. Admit your errors, reflect on the changes required, communicate with the management team, make the necessary changes and carry on. Remember too - the lessons learnt last year worked last year. There will be a whole new bunch of lessons to learn in order that you are an effective Leader this year too.

Every kind of firm - from a law firm to a charity - needs a good Leader. Leadership needs to be practiced and its skills honed.

But then the good, self aware, Leader will know that!

Do something different in 2010

I have been reading "The Lawyer" again and have finally been able to re-read an article from 4th January entitled "Law firms ready to ring in the changes for uncertain 2010". I've had to re-read it since the first time I read it I experienced such a depth of anger, frustration and depression that I almost broke my computer.

The article interviews some of the great and the good from the profession and states that "Senior figures have highlighted a number of challenges that firms need to meet to sustain profitability in 2010 and beyond". Just before I get into the detail of the article I'd like to highlight a couple of things from that sentence. Firstly - a firm cannot thrive by meeting challenges. That suggests passivity - waiting around to see what challenges there are before finding a response. The thriving firm will force its way forward - bravely setting a strategy and offering a dynamic operational excellence in support of it. My second issue is that if any firm has waited until January 2010 to know what it will do to survive the year - I suspect it will not.

Ok - let's look at what these leaders are suggesting. Peter Kalis from K&L Gates suggests"

The law firms that remain conservatively financed and diversified across nations, markets, currencies, ­practices, industries and clients will absorb the shock of the seismic events in the global economy. Other firms will disappear or fade into irrelevance.

Oh dear - this is not a strategy. Why should firms remain "conservatively financed"? Surely that has got firms to where they are now? Why don't law firms look for other sources of finance? I suspect it is because it would involve an uncomfortable change of style for most partners - one in which they were expected to perform every year (and would be measured in something other than billable hours) and one in which the firm had to become more like a business. I agree with some of what Mr. Kalis says - but it's not very brave is it?

Charles Martin at Macfarlanes says :

...prudent law firms will continue to sharpen efficiency levels, look at better client service and improve ways of organising themselves internally

Firms should have been doing that a long time ago! This should  not be news for any firm.

I could go on. It's quite a depressing list because there is almost nothing in there about strategic advantage. Only Chris Perrin from Clifford Chance (and interestingly he is General Counsel there - quite a business-like role) talked about the need to "offer something different". To quote Michael Porter (and a shocking number of people who run law firms do not seem to know who he is):

The root of the problem is a failure to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy...

I can summarise Mr. Porter as follows: operational effectiveness is doing things better; strategic advantage is doing better things. Operational effectiveness must be assumed - it is the firms that bravely (and carefully!) do something different that can hope to not just survive but to thrive in 2010 and beyond.

Leadership & Ownership vs. Management in Law Firms

I have just read "Dealing With the 'Leadership Vacuum' in Law Firm Management" by Joel A. Rose.

In general I like the article since it speaks well about the tasks required to lead a firm. Where I differ is in the tasks he seems to allocate to the Senior/Managing Partner. Let me just quite one of his lists:

The following are some of the functions that the managing partner should perform:

1. Maintaining the morale of the lawyers, as a group and individually.
2. Anticipating management needs and making recommendations for fulfilling them.
3. Supervising the administrator.
4. Making decisions concerning matters that do not warrant consideration by the management committee, such as implementation of personnel policy.
5. Implementing the management committee's decisions by informing the proper attorneys and by following up to see that the decisions have been implemented.
6. Coordinating all management activities.

Ok - point 1 is well made and is one of the most important tasks for a Managing Partner. Point 2 - well, yes, but not on his/her own. The firm's management must be trusted to bring these things to the managing committee or Partner early enough too. Point 3 is a "no brainer". It's the rest I have serious problems about.

"Implementation of ... policy". That's why the firm should have professional managers. Note that I say "professional" - not lawyers performing the roles. In my experience, lawyers should not get very close to the implementation of any policy. Point 5 I could be persuaded about so long as we are talking about legal work. Point 6, though, really upsets me. Point 6 lies at the heart of many of the problems facing law firms. Coordination of management activities is an activity that should be performed by the Chief Executive or Chief Operating Officer - i.e. the non-lawyer who, operationally, runs the firm. This role can almost never be properly accomplished by a lawyer, unless they have (a) given up all legal work to concentrate on administration and (b) undertaken a good amount of education in management. Failing that a professional is needed. Someone with the knowledge, skills and experience to run the firm's administration while the lawyers do what they specialise in.

At the heart of this matter is often confusion amongst the Partners about the difference between ownership and management. I have often heard Partners saying "We own the firm and so want to be involved in the way it runs". Well, yes they do own the firm, but the only involvement in running the firm should be in the selection of a Chief Executive and setting strategy. Anything else is inefficient. Allow the lawyers to practice law and work with clients, allow the Managing Partner to run the lawyers and lead the firm, and allow the firm's management to get on an manage.