Q: What do you think of firms that back away from supporting practices that were once hot and now are in the doldrums? Maybe the practice area isn’t thriving now, but it could bounce back, and the firm will be caught flat-footed at that point. We have people who feel like second-class citizens because their practice area isn’t in vogue right now. There’s got to be a better way.
A: In any context, the issue of short- versus long-term thinking is a tough one. There’s always a reason to favor the immediate crisis or current set of circumstances over a long-term, more balanced and holistic view. But there’s no question � and the evidence is overwhelming � that organizations that can integrate long-term thinking are more successful overall than those that tend to lurch from one short-term solution to another.
We’ve seen these patterns repeatedly, especially with real estate, bankruptcy and technology. As Phyllis Weiss Haserot points out, “Firms may be over-zealous in adding attorneys (usually expending sizable recruiting fees) and resources to capitalize on an area when it is hot and then back away, or go as far as pulling the plug, when it cools down, even if it is an area with good future promise.”
Haserot, who is president of Practice Development Counsel, a New York-based business development and coaching firm, notes that “this is short-term, reactionary thinking rather than taking a strategic position and investing in it for the long-term. When the area turns up again, the firm will be caught unprepared to handle the work and will have demoralized a significant portion of its personnel. This way of operating discourages loyalty and encourages people to keep the lines open with headhunters and jump from place to place.”
The difficulty is getting the mindset in place that allows a firm to take the time to validate the long-term view. On the one hand, it may seem logical to be nimble and responsive to clients’ immediate needs, but it will seem less impressive if the practice area you’ve neglected suddenly roars back.
One secret is to put in place long-term systems and ways of thinking in all areas of the firm � recruiting, advancement, business development, and so forth � so that forward-looking thinking becomes a habit and is not applied like a Band-aid to just one aspect of the firm’s workings.
Another benefit is that because all these systems depend on one another, all the long-term, strategic thinking and practices will work together to create greater synergy, momentum and results. You’ll often hear people lament “we don’t have time to do all this long-term thinking.” But if you take the time, you’ll have the time and will get the results that you want.
Haserot recommends, “First, each firm should have a strategic framework to operate within, and partners must commit to it, with review and adjustments at reasonable intervals. The strategic plan or framework needs to be based on market research, not partner navel-gazing. Making strategic investments means that all partners cannot expect to have the same compensation they did in their best year every year. Remember that businesses are subject to the law of supply and demand.”
She also suggests a variety of projects for lawyers who are in practice areas experiencing a downturn. For example, they can spend more time marketing the whole firm, with credit for work they bring in for others. Or they can cross-train in another area so that they can better withstand peaks and valleys. They can also work on knowledge-management projects and development of new services and products to make the firm stronger and better able to capitalize on market changes. This way they can prevent the “second-class citizen” syndrome by continuing to earn their keep.
Firms’ fickle attitudes toward practice areas contribute to cynicism about loyalty in the workplace. A businesslike and measured approach to all practice areas, whether they’re hot or not, will not only stand you in good stead when today’s hot areas cool and vice versa, but also will pay off immeasurably in lower turnover and goodwill within the workplace.
GIVING BETTER FEEDBACK
Q: I am a partner and need to do better at giving feedback. I frequently find myself in the position of redoing other people’s work because I don’t think it’s good enough, but I don’t feel great about confronting the people.
Increasingly I feel resentful about it, but I can’t seem to get myself out of this jam. I like to get along well with people and value good relationships. Most of the time it works out, but when it doesn’t, especially with someone I like very much, it’s very awkward. I want to be direct but don’t know how to do it without disrupting the relationship.
A: This is a very frequent problem in legal workplaces, probably more so than in corporations and other businesses where there have been lots of efforts made to improve difficult communications. There’s no question that improving your skills at giving feedback will make you and anyone who works with you more effective for the firm. Just think: Instead of you spending the time redoing the brief, the person who drafted it would do it.
You, of course, have to differentiate between people whose work you edit � people who just don’t have the ability or motivation to do things right, even after repeated interventions � versus those who can develop and learn. The former you need to shift to practice areas they are more suited to, or ease them out the door. The second group is where you can practice sharpening up your feedback skills.
It’s great that you want to preserve your relationships with people. Keep in mind that the pivotal divide between a social context and a work context is that there’s a greater goal than just serenely getting along together, and that is providing a superior work product for your clients. When there are problems with the work product, it’s necessary to at least mildly disrupt the personal relationship in favor of that greater goal.
So, how to do it? I think one of the main problems in this area is that people not normally keen on the idea of giving negative feedback (read: most lawyers) visualize such a session as confrontational and argumentative. I would get a different image in my head.
Visualize you and your associate, paralegal or whoever it is, as a team sitting together and looking at the future. Your aim is to produce a great product for your client, together. You need to establish in your own mind that you are on this person’s side, not angrily opposing him or her.
Then, you need to convince the other person that you’re on his or her side by establishing trust. The way to do this is to conduct productive, nonjudgmental, factually-based discussions that always focus on specific ways to improve a document or research process, as opposed to making generalizations about the person’s shortcomings.
A helpful observation would be, “Providing a concluding paragraph that draws together your points at the end of each section will help the judge see where your argument is going,” rather than, “Your writing really needs work! Your brief isn’t convincing, and the judge will get lost while reading it.” That’s the kind of thing that makes people go off. Your job is to help the other person keep his or her eye on the ball � doing better work for the client, not defending himself or herself to preserve personal dignity.
Remember, too, that positive feedback needs to be factual and specific as well, so that others believe it and also so that the scales remain balanced. Airy, on-the-fly remarks like, “Looks fine!” provide precious little of the positive reinforcement that human beings need to feel like their life has a meaning and purpose.
The hardest part about getting into productive feedback work is actually plunging in the first time and doing it. The way to establish solid trust with someone else is to go through a cycle of feedback � they produce the work, you review it and give productive comments, they revise it and it’s actually improved, and your relationship is preserved � so that others see that feedback is not a threatening and divisive process, but is, in fact, an opportunity to get better at what they do.
Redoing someone else’s work is actually not doing the person a favor; it’s preventing him or her from growing and developing. So square your shoulders and step up to the plate. You’ll need a little courage to get going, but the results you will get may surprise you.
The author, a former litigator, is principal consultant with Values At Work in Montclair. Her article, “Managing Culture Shock” in Law Practice Management magazine, published by the American Bar Association, won the 2001 Edge Award for Best Article of the Year. Her advice column appears regularly in the Law Journal. Send your questions about law firm politics and law office management to
