legal sanity

My posts on lawyer experience management, nurturing the partner-associate business relationship, winning the hearts and minds of lawyers, and the economics of lawyer depletion have generated some interesting offline discussions on the root causes of lawyer defection from one firm to another.

While some believe that a desire for more money, status and autonomy remains the primary motivator, others think that many of today’s practitioner-defectors leave firms first and foremost to claim greater professional camaraderie and meaning. In my experience as a coach and consultant to lawyers, I’ve heard more and more practitioners express a willingness to sacrifice prestige and pay for fit and connection. As I’ve said before: High pay and big name clients might get law schools’ best and brightest through a firm’s door; but in the emerging age of the dual-centric worker, big money alone likely won’t keep many of them toiling there year after year after year.

Of course, there are lawyers who thrive in a pay-your-dues firm atmosphere where there’s scant positive feedback and mentoring, no sure prospect of making partner, little to no work-life synergy and tough competition for plum assignments [a business culture David Maister profiles in a terrific post called The End of Apprenticeship]. The legal profession would be in shambles if this wasn’t the case. As a recent CareerJournal.com article suggests, there will always be newly-minted and more seasoned lawyers willing to log long hours in a bid to get (and stay) ahead.

But firms trying to stem the tide of attrition within their ranks have to be candid enough to admit that there’s probably something beyond money, status and autonomy that the fleeing lawyers are seeking in those greener pastures. They must be willing to devote time, energy and other resources to ascertaining what their incoming and remaining lawyers really need to feel connected to the firm in healthy mind, spirit and body. And, once they have a handle on those lawyer needs, firms will have to decide whether or not they’re willing and able to take steps to meet them.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

There’s a good deal of discussion and debate out there about the new era of customer relationship management in which the emphasis is increasingly placed on understanding and optimizing the customer experience.

While reading up on this subject for my training and development business, it occurred to me that law firms and the legal profession would greatly benefit from pursuing something I call lawyer experience management (LEM). LEM initiatives would afford invaluable insight into how and why lawyers are -and aren’t - energized, fulfilled and inspired by their work. Toward this end, they would assess how lawyers typically feel when interacting with their firms and fellow professionals. They’d also gauge how lawyers commonly react to the true culture of their firms and profession over time.

Of course, this kind of self-scrutiny would require a huge amount of openness and honesty on the parts of practitioners, firms and professional associations. But, there is precedent for this kind of candor. In order to ensure sustainability and curb attrition, organizations are taking steps to identify and reform arrogant and abusive executives. They’re also using executive coaching to cultivate effective leaders.

In any kind of self-inquiry - including the corporate version that LEM would require – adding a healthy dose of humor to the candor often helps the process along. In this spirit, I highly recommend that you get a copy of blogger-author Jeremy Blachman’s very funny new book, Anonymous Lawyer, which offers a hiring partner’s (maybe-not-so) satirical look at life at a prestigious firm. You’ll get a flavor for the book from the related Anonymous Law Firm site.

While, ultimately, each of us is responsible for optimizing our own life in the law; concerted efforts to understand and buoy the lawyer experience within firms and in the field can only work to our collective benefit.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A couple of months ago, I looked at the economics of lawyer depletion. The subject recently resurfaced in a post at Bruce MacEwen’s Adam Smith, Esq. discussing sustainability and the law firm business model. Reflecting on that paradigm’s inherent weaknesses, MacEwen states: “it's a structural difficulty created by client expectations for responsiveness, combined with the ineluctable financial arithmetic of the billable hour, colliding with women's prime biological and sociocultural child-bearing years, and with everyone's desire that life consist of more than the four walls of the office.”

Responding to MacEwen’s post, blogger Rob Millard of The Adventure of Strategy offered up some possible law firm solutions to the problem of “overworked and overstressed associates,” including: accepting lower per partner profits; instituting a staggered compensation system; and leveraging technology so that lawyers can work from home some of the time. Millard winds down his commentary by observing: “It’s all very well to have swimming pools, concierge services and restaurants to support those that are willing to sacrifice all for their careers. But excluding those that seek a balance is depriving the firms of potentially valuable capacity at a time when good corporate lawyers are in desperately short supply.”

Lending a broader cultural context to MacEwen’s and Millard’s observations is a flurry new posts and articles on the American phenomenon of forfeiting accrued vacation time. I’ve previously discussed Americans’ work-life identity crisis and the problem of over-work in America (pdf).

Adding to this foundation of information is a BostonWorks.com article, titled Time off is a gift; it would be rude not use it, and a related post from the Job blog. Both consider why we tend to live to work in this country and the fallout from doing so.

The discussion continues in a Time.com essay called Just Sit Back and Relax! and in a piece from CSMonitor.com on corporate efforts to counter employees’ all-work-and-no-play mindset. Notably, the latter article points out that the law is one field in which these new quality-of-life efforts have yet to get a foothold.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

You’ve likely heard of the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) first articulated by Harvard educator Howard Gardner. He proposes that there are multiple dimensions to human intelligence, including logical-mathematical, verbal-linguistic, spatial-visual, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects. According to Gardner and other proponents of MI, almost all of us can access and develop these different, but closely related, intelligences.

I’ve been interested in human intelligence and affiliated topics for some time, as evidenced by my various posts on the interplay of lawyering and emotional intelligence, moral intelligence, positive psychology and appreciative inquiry.

Always keen on continuing my education in this arena, I was very happy to come across a post from idealawg containing blogger Stephanie West Allen’s interview with Carol Metzker, the co-author of a new book called Appreciative Intelligence: Seeing the Mighty Oak in the Acorn.

I’d received an introduction to this newly-minted type of intelligence through an article Metzker and Tojo Thatchenkery (the book’s other author) wrote for Ode Magazine on The secret to highly successful people. The deft blog interview adds much to this piece because it highlights how Appreciative Intelligence – the abilty “to see what is positive, generative and possible” in situations and people – can be harnessed and honed by professionals (aka lawyers) who are trained, employed and otherwise inclined to "search for past, present, and future problems.”

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This has been a great time of transition in my family. My son had his pre-k “gradulation” last week and my eldest daughter officially moves up from elementary to middle school tomorrow. Both kids are understandably nervous about the changes that await them. They similarly express that they hope they’ll be able to find and befriend other children who share their interests. This interest-based camaraderie seems key to their sense of security and happiness in their new school life.

A conversation I recently had with a lawyer acquaintance of mine reminded me that adults also thrive on such interest-based connections. He asked me what I thought of affinity groups like the ones his Biglaw firm has formed and promoted to connect lawyers around such common denominators as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

In the ensuing conversation, I explained that lawyers regularly tell me that they feel isolated and lonely although they’re surrounded by hundreds of co-workers every day. They attribute their sense of isolation to, among other things, the competitive nature of the business and long working hours. This loneliness – this lack of esprit de corps – is one of the primary causes of the rampant lawyer attrition plaguing firms today.

While many firms embrace affinity groups as a key component of their diversity initiatives, such groups can be formed around a multitude of shared interests – like books, sports, travel and music. Regardless of their focus, they hold great potential for fostering the kind of employee bonds that compel career contentment and thwart attrition.

For an interesting look at how businesses can avert disintegration and sustain themselves by recognizing and promoting shared interests, check out this fascinating New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell called The Cellular Church.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am a regular contributor to Office-Politics, an online help site where a panel of professionals responds to reader inquiries about dealing with workplace dilemmas. I really enjoy being part of this real-world dialogue. Some of the questions and answers fielded through the site inspired its originator, Franke James, to create an innovative board game - also called Office-Politics - that aims to teach us how to play, and laugh, at our everyday office challenges.

In my recent Web wanderings, I came across a few articles that touch on the topic of navigating office politics. The first, from CareerJournal.com, shares pointers on The Right – and Wrong – Way to Deal with a Lousy Manager. According to the piece, a baseline tactic is to ask ourselves: “Is this a bully, or simply a case of two personalities that don't get along?” To lend some clarity to this query, we’re given an expert depiction of a “bad boss” as someone “who's sadistic, completely indecisive, cruel, gives no feedback, treats you like you're a bad smell, [and] takes credit for everything you've done.” In addition to helping us distill the conundrum we face, the article highlights an assortment of possible recourses, such as getting a transfer, quitting, talking it out or going to a higher up.

Offering a different perspective on the players in our office dramas is this interesting USA Today article [tipped at the Worthwhile blog] discussing how many CEOs are introverts by nature. As part of the coverage, we learn that introverts “are not shy by definition, but they become drained by social encounters and need time alone to recharge.” They also “prefer to know a few people well, which fits many CEOs who often say that it's lonely at the top and that they confide in a small circle of friends.”

I’ve previously posted on different aspects of the lawyer generation gap and its effects on law firm dynamics. The conversation continues in the June 2006 issue of the ABA’s Law Practice Magazine, which features a number of articles addressing this important component of law office politics today.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Through my training and development work, I’ve met many, many practitioners who feel thoroughly depleted by their lives in the law. I’ve previously discussed possible causes of this widespread lawyer discontent and delved into the economics of lawyer depletion.

In a recent post at his blog Adam Smith, Esq., Bruce MacEwen tips us to one possible cure for what’s ailing lawyers today. The post revolves around this question: Can You Say “No?”  MacEwen poses the query to emphasize how some major law firms have learned that defining and honoring the boundaries of their business is key to their profitability and sustainability. As MacEwen sums it up: “Strategy means saying no” [original emphasis].

The same holds true for the individual lawyers who populate these firms and others. We need to know, clearly establish and honor our personal and professional boundaries to avoid the slippery slope to depletion and career dissatisfaction. This means saying “no” to a continuous stream of work that doesn’t lend meaning to our lives; that doesn’t fill us up. It also requires saying "no" to working and interacting with people who are constantly in taking mode – whether they’re colleagues or clients.

In taking MacEwen's observation to the micro level, we can see that, ultimately, it’s up to us to embrace the power of “no” as a vital and viable strategy for optimizing our lives in the law.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There’s an interesting post over at Managers Realm [as tipped by the Be Excellent blog] discussing the nexus between leading and serving. According to its author, Gary Bourgeault, the guiding tenet of “true leaders and great managers” is this: “You're not to think of yourself as over people but rather their servants.”

Bourgeault cites some major historical precedent for approaching leadership with the mindset of a servant. And he concludes with this timeless observation: “It's shocking for those who get this, to see how they draw more from the wells of water deep within their people, than those who have to battle, fight, threaten and bully to get what is needed to be done accomplished.”

Reading Bourgeault’s words, I couldn’t help but ponder how many law firm leaders and managers think that – and act like - they’re in the business of serving the attorneys they lead and manage. To really embrace the role of a servant, they would also have to embrace the kind of business intimacy that lawyers typically eschew.

This is not my first exposure to this topic. My longtime friend, author and speaker Shar McBee, teaches business managers and leaders around the globe about making the connection between leading and serving. You can read more about her work and books at her official site, To Lead Is To Serve. 

While I’m on the topic of leadership, I’d like to note that Mark Beese’s terrific blog, Leadership for Lawyers, is now on the roster of Law.com affiliate blogs. Welcome, Mark.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The other day, some friends and I were discussing our personal histories of taking risks in our business lives. By risks, we all meant those voluntary - and sometimes involuntary - moves we’ve made into the unknown in order to fulfill our dreams of the day and survive and thrive professionally.

Over the last 15 years, my personal journey has taken me from the relative comfort and security of big firm work to launching my own practice and a training and development business. I’ve learned a lot about myself as a person, lawyer and entrepreneur during this risk-to-change process. There have been successes and stumbles, but they’ve all moved me in a positive direction.

Passion catalyst Curt Rosengren of The Occupational Adventure has a terrific post on the mechanics of risk-taking. Drawing from an article on risk by life coach Laurie R. Geary, Rosengren describes how the risk-taking realm is made up of three zones - the comfort zone, the learning zone, and the anxiety zone.

According to Geary, when we risk a change, we pass through the leading edge of our comfort zone into the learning zone. These two zones co-exist in a symbiotic circuit of sorts. As we leap into the unknown and learn something new, that acquired knowledge or skill set gets assimilated into our comfort zone, expanding it.

The key in this risk-growth exchange is to avoid venturing beyond the learning zone into our anxiety zone where, Geary says, no learning takes place because we’re too busy channeling all our energy into managing our angst.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When we moved to the suburbs several years ago, my wife decided to cultivate a chemical-free lawn. Organic landscaping fits our lifestyle and values, but the resulting clover-and-weed-laden expanse doesn’t mesh well with the neighbors’ perfectly manicured greens. What works for us doesn’t seem to suit our surroundings. There’s a mis-fit in lawn aesthetic that we (and our understanding neighbors) have made peace with.

The concept of fit is something I think about quite a bit. It’s figured prominently in my professional life, as I’ve strived to build a business and business relationships that fill, rather than deplete, me. I’m certainly not alone in my quest for fit-ness. As I noted in an earlier post on choosing fit over prestige, the legal profession is meeting a workforce that’s willing to shirk stellar firm reputations and high salaries in favor of business environments that truly complement their personalities and larger life interests.

Firms are also embracing the need for a good firm-associate fit. A recent article on Bootcamp Training For New Attorneys highlights a two-week component of the summer program at Howrey LLP. During the Howrey Bootcamp, summer associates are housed in a conference center where they receive “intensive training that includes classes, depositions and a mock trial in front of partners and judges.” The piece offers these words from the firm’s hiring partner regarding the program’s genesis: “Bootcamp was conceived of as a way of getting associates to the firm who better fit what we do." To further the fit, Howrey pares its entire summer program down to five weeks and encourages its summer associates to compare experiences by working for another firm.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks