5 Ways Law Departments Can Drive Organizational Change
Kevin Clem, chief commercial officer at HBR Consulting, a company that advises corporations, law firms and law departments, has tips on how departments can help drive necessary organizational changes and keep operations on track.
October 11, 2019 at 02:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Change is the only constant in life, said the philosopher Heraclitus in the sixth century BCE, and that couldn't be more true in 21st century law departments. But are there guidelines for helping departments navigate the upheaval wrought by restructuring, mergers, spinoffs, budget cuts, management shake-ups, technological innovations and the like?
In a recent informal survey of participants at the midyear ACCXChange meeting in Minneapolis, 76% of respondents reported that their law departments either "reluctantly endure" change or "absolutely abhor" it at 7%. Only 2%—a single respondent—claimed that their department enthusiastically embraced change. Yet 79% of respondents reported that their law departments implemented "significant change" either "sometimes" or "often."
Kevin Clem, chief commercial officer at HBR Consulting, a Chicago-based company that advises corporations, law firms and law departments, has some answers. Clem provided five tips on how departments can help drive necessary organizational changes and keep operations on track. Here are some of his pointers, summarized for length and clarity:
1. Establish the need for change in the department. "The first step is describing what is the macro driver of the decision, why this and why now? The natural reaction is for people to ask, how is this going to affect me individually?" Be prepared with answers, Clem says. "Rarely do attorneys perceive that change efforts in the department as a whole are well run or effective."
2. Find the right leader or team to drive the change forward across the department. "Get the tone at the top right," Clem said. Identify the appropriate leaders who will work together to drive the initiative forward from start to finish, establishing the message and the timeline, such as a merger closing in six months. "And they need to walk the talk," he said. Leaders can't verbalize support for change while continuing in the old ways themselves. Make sure all the leaders are rowing in the same direction before bringing in the rank and file.
3. Surround the leadership team with individual change agents, members of the department who may not be hierarchical leaders. These are people who are seen as key influencers in a department, whether or not they are at the top of the hierarchy, Clem said. They could be the department's lawyers, paralegals and administrative assistants, and other staff. Give them responsibility and get them engaged in the process. Include people who are historically change resisters, and make them part of the team. And, "you have to have a mechanism to allow feedback," Clem said. "You have to let people know there will be feedback opportunity throughout the change. People need to feel they can have a voice throughout the project, not just at the beginning and the end."
4. Focus on how you continue to communicate throughout the course of the change. "A theme, such as Project Falcon, is helpful," branding the change effort with something that ideally is "fun and memorable." Include periodic updates and input gathering along the journey. Introducing an element of rivalry among groups sometimes helps drive success, especially with competitive types, as are many lawyers. "Successful organizational change often engages the competitive spirit in a productive way."
5. Celebrate small wins along the way, don't wait for completion. Identify and celebrate achieving short-term goals for whatever change you are trying to drive. "Celebrate a small, early win regardless of whether it is coercive or participatory change," he said.
What is most likely to undermine success? Allowing leaders to opt out of the process and disengage. "In the same way that celebrating quick wins can create positive momentum, allowing a group, subset or faction the ability to opt out of the change can undermine the overall effort. It may initially create a small crack in the process, but enough small cracks in the level of engagement can grow to become a major inhibitor to change success,'' Clem said. "If you haven't created an environment where feedback and engagement from every group is expected, you create a situation where people can disengage and stifle progress."
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250