|
http://www.patrickmckenna.com/blog
Page << Prev 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next >> of 95
Post #381 – Thursday, March 5, 2009
In A Time of Uncertainty & Economic Turbulence
 It is my honor to be serving as Conference Chair for the Ark Group’s Practice Management In A Time of Uncertainty & Economic Turbulence event on March 18 at the University of Chicago. You only have a limited time left to register so that you can hear . . .
- how Patrick Lamb, Partner, Valorem Law Group; Paul Lippe, CEO, Legal OnRamp and Brian Burke, Chair Emeritus, Baker & Daniels recommend you drive productivity through operational excellence. These three speakers will suggest ways in which you can create new services and pricing models uniquely suited to the pressures that your clients are facing; identifying the strategic and structural changes essential to ensuring cost reduction while streamlining (or restructuring) business processes to maintain the financial performance of the firm; and other similar pragmatic techniques.
- how Harry Trueheart, Non-Executive Chairman, Nixon Peabody; Don Lents, Chairman, Bryan Cave and Ross Fishman of Fishman Marketing suggest that you take action to accelerate your business development in a dismal economy. Learn how to address the changing nature of the firm / client relationship; identify and implement metrics that underpin your firm’s business strategy, and forge resilient strategies designed to focus on areas in which you can establish a clear lead.
Further sessions feature speakers from law firms like DLA Piper, Jenner & Block, Holme Roberts and Axiom dealing with subject ranging from understanding the key performance factors for 2009 to how to capitalize on emerging technologies.
For further information and registration details, call Peter Franken today at the Ark Group (773) 281-4275.
Post #380 – Friday, February 20, 2009
When Facing The Terror Of Termination
 Today, I received the following eminently astute insights, from a reader (former managing partner) of this blog that offers some salient advice for every firm and practice group leader when having to face a termination situation.
Your latest postings offer some very good points, well delivered, and unfortunately timely. There are three basic types of terminations that I have had to work with:
1) Termination for cause.
Don't think for a minute that these are easy. They are incredibly difficult. You have a whole package of legal issues. But emotionally, there is such a let down and disappointment because it is somebody you have worked with. You know them. You trusted them. They did something very clearly and absolutely with intent they knew was wrong. Sometimes there are pressures and reasons (none of them justify the transgression) that are behind it. Sometimes they are just stupid. Fortunately they have tended to be rare. But even so, there is an interesting thing about these terminations. They tend to be popular with the rest of the team. They see that not only are there rules, but they are applied across the board, fairly. No worse a morale flogger can there be than rules held out to be important, that are ignored or selectively applied. Also critical is the need to be compassionate and generous even to the dismissed employee under these circumstances. There is no need to humiliate or make an example of them in some public way. Most folks know or find out what happened anyway. Sometimes there are legal and business reasons why you should maintain confidentiality. Usually it is just common sense to do what you have to do and move on. Nothing is to be gained by stomping them. Treat it for what it is, as a tragic and unnecessary event brought upon themselves. And don't personalize it as your choice or election. Your position requires you to fulfill your duty to take the action, and you do. What you like, or want or would prefer to do personally can have no part in it. Do what every person in the position should have to do. If you can be classy in this situation, it spreads to other tough things you have to do.
2) Terminations for performance.
This does not have to be tough, if you have managed the review process, with honest feedback, along the way. Most of the time those persons who are struggling will get the message and leave voluntarily. And you should not be surprised that they do because that is supposed to be part of the honest and diligent feedback process. If you are communicating with someone that they are having trouble, or challenges, but that the firm is committed to working with them and getting them over the hurdles, and you back that up with tangible action, then the person with real potential that you want to keep for the next round should stay. I have never had a discussion with an attorney, whether associate or partner, who was surprised that we were coming to the end of the road together. And that means also that you don't shove them off a cliff. Provide time, support and real effort other than words, to get a new position elsewhere. Make this very fine professional, a member of your team, an ally into the future, a valuable alum, who will respect and appreciate that they were treated fairly. Some may not feel that way, but a great majority will if you handle it positively and well. These people are among the best and brightest out there. That is why you hired them in the first place. Not succeeding in your organization does not mean they will not succeed elsewhere. It may be in private practice, it may be doing something else. The raw truth is that there really is nothing all that special about the law, or about your firm. It is something you do, not who you are. Be open about that DAY ONE, with associates, partners and staff. Be clear about what you are all trying to accomplish and why. For those that make the right fit, it creates a strength and enthusiasm. For those who do not . . . not such a big deal. You are still great. We recognized it, others will too. Chin up, let's get a good place for you that will work even better if we can.
3) Terminations for economic reasons.
These are the hardest, of course. These are because YOU and your leadership team have failed. Plain and simple. Leadership is supposed to anticipate, position and manage a firm to success in good times and bad. (Is there a book out there that says leaders are not supposed to be accountable for failures of policies, strategies and directions that they have authored and implemented – or failed to author or implement – and we just missed it?) Some times you can steer the ship skillfully and avoid the rocks. Sometimes you get tossed about and bump into a few. Other times, and we are seeing a lot of this now, the boat gets grounded big time on a shoal, and even flounders. Leaders are supposed to look ahead, understand the business, position and structure the entity for survival, and make things happen for the benefit of all. If they cannot, better get somebody else on the bridge. This one is just a raw necessity termination because the firm has 100 mouths and can only feed 90. Nobody on the team is someone we want to let go. Call it like it is, apologize, and do everything you can to help. And this may seem odd, but stay in touch. When they get a job, send a note of congratulations. Invite them to a social event. Have alum gatherings. Keep open the possibility that maybe someday you will want them back, and they will want to come back.
And if you ever find that you can conduct a personal meeting of this type and you don't agonize over it before, during and after, then you have lost the emotional quotient and feel that you must have to do this part of your job properly, and you need to hand the reins to somebody else.
[As of 1:30 p.m. today, we now have our first week of more than 1000 people laid off from BigLaw (1002 - 352 lawyers and 650 staff)]
Post #379 – Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Avoid Adding Insult To Injury
I received the following e-mail this morning from Joseph Greeny. Joseph is coauthor of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. I thought I would share his comments here as they build nicely on my last post – Now Be Sensitive To The Emotional Turmoil . . .
 Getting laid off is horrible. It fills the laid off person with uncertainty. It throws a family into turmoil. It makes people doubt their worth and capacity. So, let’s be clear – nothing reveals a leader’s soul more than the way he or she handles necessary dismissals. Unless you are willing to sacrifice time, money and personal pain in the service of those you are dismissing, you deserve no loyalty from those who remain. Here are some things that can help you avoid adding insult to the injury of layoffs:
• Be immediately transparent about possibilities and certainties.
When you establish a track record of early communication you avoid the crippling loss of attention caused by mistrust. In the absence of prompt leadership communication, you don’t get focus, you get rumors. And rumors cost far more in the long run than any downside of prompt transparency.
• Feel pain when you deliver pain.
If you have bad news to deliver, give it face-to-face. Don’t try to protect yourself from discomfort by delivering e-pink slips or other mass messages. You expected these people to be loyal to you, now is your chance to show loyalty in return by demonstrating your willingness to suffer with them. Don’t be afraid to tell them how agonizing it is for you while sympathizing with their plight. If you feel sick to your stomach, say so. If you feel like crying, a tear can help them know they’re not in this alone — someone truly cares. However, before doing anything, make sure your actions are completely sincere.
• Respond to anger with compassion.
If someone becomes upset, angry, or accusatory, you need not respond to the content of their statements. But by all means, respond sincerely to the emotion. For example, if someone says, “This is a croc, you’re just using this downsizing to get rid of anyone who’s not one of the good old boys.” You should be aware of and compliant with what you are authorized to share about the decision-making process involved in the downsizing. But in any event you can say, “I’ve done my best to follow the policies I was given in the downsizing. And I am sick at heart that it is coming down badly on you. I am sorry for the turmoil this will cause you and assure you I will help in your transition any way I can.” While this statement won’t take away the pain, it at least helps you avoid causing more pain by seeming clinical, political or defensive.
• Be as generous as possible.
Your willingness to sacrifice for those leaving is THE determinant of how much trust you’ll have with those remaining. Always side on generosity when you attend to the needs of those you’re laying off.
• Replace general insincerity with specific commitments.
No matter how stingy or generous your firm chooses to be in the layoffs, you can offer your own support — which is often more personal and meaningful when you’re sharing the bad news. Have a list of things you can personally offer, depending on the needs of those you’re letting go. A specific offer of two or three things you can do for the individuals you are laying off will tell them a lot more about your sincerity than general, “If there’s anything I can do…” statements.
Post #378 – Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Now Be Sensitive To The Emotional Turmoil
 Last week was brutal for US law firms — in the space of two days, over 1,100 lawyers and staff had either been fired or asked to consider buyouts. So how does it feel to be one of the lucky ones that survived those cuts? "It's depressing," claims one senior associate. "You walk into the office and it's quiet, the entire atmosphere is sullen. People are anxious, depressed and pissed. One might say that at least I still have a job and should be grateful. Well, I'm not sure how grateful I really feel. Watching close friends pack their things to leave — and dealing with the guilt that it wasn't me and the anxiety that I might still be among the next group to go — that's not much cause for celebration."
The terms psychologists toss around to describe these feelings include survivor's guilt (why him and not me?); survivor's envy (thinking you might be better off gone too); and emotional contagion (the tendency to pick up your laid-off colleagues' feelings of extreme anxiety). These feelings are with us in every recession, but as layoffs continue, with wave upon wave of cuts, reported in firm after firm, people become despondent. In fact, empirical research shows that reduced commitment and diminished productivity can linger for the better part of a year after a major layoff takes place.
And yet many firms are oblivious to these effects. The member of one law firm executive committee was very proud to report that his firm had a generous severance package. I thought to myself, that's great, but I would love to have asked him what the firm has done for the people who have remained? I’m absolutely positive it would have been a conversation-ending question. The anguish may be real, but good luck talking about it. Talking about it, though, is exactly what you should be doing.
If you haven’t done so before, now is the time to talk openly about the effect of the downturn on your firm. By doing so, you can at least try to help people feel they have some small measure of control over the situation. Discuss issues such as what happened during the last business slowdown. How did things turn around? What was learned from that experience? Explore these topics in meetings. Brainstorm possible solutions and new ideas. Not only will you foster more of a “we’re all in this together” mentality, but you might also get some helpful suggestions.
As your colleagues may be suffering unusual amounts of stress, you need to reach out and help those who are feeling down, be more empathetic and tolerant than usual. And, your top performers, in particular, need some extra attention right now. Not only are their contributions especially critical, but your best people always need to be reassured and given compelling reasons to stay with the firm. Talk frequently with them about their professional goals and what motivates them.
Finally, even in times of economic turmoil, every good firm has upbeat facts that need to be repeated. An opportunity that the firm is moving forward with, a small client deal that was just closed, a litigation win that was achieved. Effective leaders find ways to keep hope alive!
Post #377 – Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Could European Banks Be in Eminent Danger?
There was a rather startling article that appeared in last week’s London Telegraph. The article I am referring to begins:
 A bail-out of the toxic assets held by European banks’ could plunge the European union into crisis, according to a confidential Brussels document. “Estimates of total expected asset write-downs suggest that the budgetary costs – actual and contingent - of asset relief could be very large both in absolute terms and relative to GDP in member states,” the EC document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, cautioned. The secret 17-page paper was discussed by finance ministers, including the Chancellor Alistair Darling on Tuesday.
An economist friend, in-the-know, shed some light on this situation for me . . .
The banking system of Europe may be at the edge of the abyss. The author of the article claims to have seen a secret European Commission report. The report estimates that losses (write-downs) by European banks will be in the range of £16.3 trillion euros (the equivalent of $25 trillion). If true, then to save the banking system, European governments will have to find an extra $25 trillion, FAST. There is only one source of such funding: the European Central Bank.
For comparison's sake, consider the $700 billion banking bailout in the United States last fall. Of this, only about half has been spent. That was sufficient bailing wire and chewing gum to keep the American banking system going. More will be needed, but so far, this has sufficed. The Federal Reserve did a lot of asset swaps in 2008 - - Treasury debt for toxic assets – and pumped in an extra trillion dollars or so. But the system has held. Adding these together - - the increase in the monetary base and $350 billion in bailout money - - the total is around $1.5 trillion. Then think "$25 trillion." This is a sobering thought!
Twenty-five trillion dollars in losses is twice the size of the gross domestic product of the European Community. There are over a dozen national EC governments. How will they coordinate their respective bailouts? Think of a dozen Henry Paulsons. Terrifying, isn't it?
European bank stocks have fallen since the article was published, but they are not in free-fall. In my view, the European public still has faith that the governments and the central banks will successfully intervene to restore commercial banks. But if the article was correct, that 44% of bank balance sheets have disappeared, then the public is living in la-la land. The entire structure of Europe's capital markets is at risk.
This is the ringing of the bell. The bell of the Great Depression of the 1930's rang on Wall Street in October 1929. But that was not the cause of the Great Depression. The causes were: (1) monetary base expansion in the 1920s, (2) the cessation of this expansion in 1929; (3) the governments' raising of tariff and trade barriers in 1930 all over the West, and (4) the collapse of the Austria's Credit Anstalt Bank in 1931. In the USA, we saw the first two, 200-2007.
Central banks will inflate to keep any major bank from collapsing. But the trend is ominous. Russia and Eastern Europe are gonners. European banks that lent to them are, too. So is the purchasing power of the euro - - and maybe even the actual euro. I can see Germany cutting and running sometime before 2011.
For further details you may want to read this story and the accompanying comments.
Post #376 – Saturday, February 14, 2009
More On Managing Your Priorities
Further to my Post #374 (When The Urgent Displaces The Important) and the response articulated by The LAB to a new managing partner’s specific question, I received the following comments from Edwin Resser an experienced firm and office managing partner whom I value greatly for his thought provoking insights. I sent these comments on to the firm leader who initially posed the question and then thought that I would also share Ed’s comments for those who are regular readers of this blog:
 Good advice. Three additional bits to add for consideration.
1) Have at the top of your agenda being responsive as immediately as possible to every one of your partners, even if it is just to say, “I can't meet with you now, or tomorrow at noon, but I can see you at X o'clock the day after tomorrow.” They need to feel that you are serving them and all of the partners assiduously. And it has to be true. “Can you let me know what you want to talk about?” Many partners need to be asked what is on their mind because they just ask for a meeting with a blind agenda. The worst thing possible is to get together two days later and be asked a question you don't know the answer to or can get to with ten minutes of digging - but you need the ten minutes! And finally, have at the forefront of your mind when it is that they and you need to have that answer. Don't be compelled to give one with a hip shot. Think about it. Get some input from others if necessary. Have your own advisory group of key partners to go to for perspective, balance and reason when you need it. You are a leader; not a Messiah.
2) Not everyone is going to think of you as a benevolent person. Sometimes the job will require things be done that you don't want to do. There may be people who feel at risk or danger (the current economic environment certainly amplifies this!) But there are also some who, not surprisingly, are uncomfortable with all manner of authority and leadership irrespective of your own self-perception as a patient and kind human being! Consider having a consigliore, someone senior, respected and popular. He does not have to share your views, indeed in some ways it may be a good idea to have someone that clearly does not, and may trend to being ultra-sympathetic and nurturing to the point of being a blocker of any practical action in hard circumstances. That is ok. He or she is not the person making the decisions . . . you are. But the message to everyone is this:
“My door is always open. I feel and will try to be open about any subject you care to raise, and be objective about it. But, there may be something that for some reason you are concerned about raising directly with me. It may be about my performance. Or it may not be me, just you, that is uncomfortable about meeting face to face. I don't want you to be disenfranchised. There should be no sacred cows or taboo issues. So go to good old Mr / Ms Goodfellow, our beloved emeritus partner here, and I promise you this - A) absolute confidentiality. B) whatever it is that I am doing, should Goodfellow come to me about it, I will stop, seriously and in good faith reconsider and reflect on it. That does not mean that I will change my mind, but I promise I will be open to considering and if necessary discussing it, and even doing it. “
Just knowing that there is absolutely a means by which they can communicate any and every concern is a huge thing in a law firm.
3) Set up a variety of working groups on administrative and executive levels through which you not only get things done, but solicit input from your partners and pass out consistent messages to then be circulated by them to their practices and working groups. It gets the communication flowing through multiple channels and cuts down on giving the same message separately, 50 times.
LISTEN at least ten times more than you talk.
PRAISE good jobs in public.
DISCIPLINE bad jobs in private.
GIVE CREDIT to achievements to others who played decisive roles, even if you were actively engaged to make it happen. Everybody knows. Insecurity reeks when as the leader you have to be telling your team you did something good.
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for things that go poorly. No matter what the result, point out what could have done better. These are lawyers, they see it and know it. What they are concerned about is whether their leader is so stupid as not to see it. If they know you do see it, they are going to feel better about you. And immensely glad they don't have the job and will be inclined to support you to do a good enough job to keep after it so they don't have to do it themselves."
 Edwin’s comments were originally posted on the Legal OnRamp Forum. If you are not a member of Legal OnRamp, please shoot me a note so that I might tell you about a valuable resource you are obviously missing out on accessing.
Post #375 – Saturday, February 14, 2009
Banking Crisis – Deja Vu
The Obama administration is committing huge dollars to rescuing banks. “Son of TARP,” the Financial Times calls it. Why do the banks need money? Because they don’t have any. If you add up their assets and subtract their liabilities, you end up with a hole. Maybe that hole is only $200 billion debt. Maybe it is trillions deep. Nobody really knows.
The Japanese have been there before. They endured a “lost decade” of economic stagnation in the 1990s as their banks labored under crippling debt and successive governments wasted trillions of yen on half measures. Back then, America sent a steady stream of advisors to Japan. The world’s second largest economy was in a stall and seemed in no hurry to get out of it. Its largest banks were “zombies,” said the Americans; they were propped up by the Japanese government in order to avoid losses and embarrassment. If the Japanese wanted to get things moving again they should let those banks fail . . . let the free market do its work . . . let the chips fall where they may. Then, capitalists, entrepreneurs and scrappy businessmen could pick them up and build with them.
The Japanese didn’t take the advice. To this day, 19 years after the beginning of Japan’s long, soft, on-again, off-again depression, the economy is still in a slump . . . and expecting negative growth again this year. All together, Japanese investors are said to have lost a sum equal to 300% of the nation’s annual GDP – the equivalent to a loss of about $45 trillion in the United States.
Observers of the Japanese situation see the same train wreck heading here. Ironic, isn’t it, that when the same crisis comes to the United States, Americans do not take their own advice. They are keeping the zombies alive, just like the Japanese did. And the zombies are sucking the blood out of the economy. So far, the Obama administration is avoiding the hard decisions – like nationalizing banks, wiping out shareholders, or allowing banks to collapse under the weight of their own debt. In the end, Japan had to do all those things.
Unfortunately, I think we’re still very early in this thing. It’s not going to just blow away like other post-war recessions. One reason that it’s going to get worse is that the biggest shoe has yet to drop . . . interest rates are now at all-time lows. What’s inevitable is much higher interest rates. And when they go up, that will be the final nail in the coffin. It will wipe out a huge amount of capital. And higher interest rates will bring on more bankruptcies.
Meanwhile, the demographics-based economist and best-selling author Harry Dent expects that the de-leveraging trend will continue into 2012 or 2013 before the economy can expand. In major banking crises like this, as opposed to a typical recession, things usually take about five years to work themselves out, Mr. Dent noted. I’m praying he’s wrong, but I’m planning for the worst, just in case. What are you planning for?
Post # 374 – Friday, February 6, 2009
When The Urgent Displaces The Important
 Last March, together with Baker & Daniels Chair Emeritus Brian K. Burke, I co-founded what is now known as The LAB (the Managing Partner Leadership Advisory Board) – a forum designed to provide recently appointed managing partners with a source for obtaining pragmatic advice on their leadership questions and critical burning issues. The formation of this group was the result of suggestions made during our bi-annual First 100 Days master class for new managing partners and has proven to be a valuable resource for new leaders.
Here is the latest question, number ten in a series of different queries that The LAB members have now responded to:
I’ve just taken on the leadership of our firm (what great timing I have); and indeed that is at the heart of my question as I’m also desperately trying to maintain a bit of a legal practice over the next four years (my term in office). I’m not sure whether it is simply a result of the economic doldrums we are all in, but I have been just overwhelmed by the office drop-bys, the desire my partners have to chat, the requests for one-on-one meetings, and the sheer demands on my time. I am sincerely hoping that this will taper off over the next few months, but conscious that I need to set a rhythm and manage people’s expectations – if that is possible. Please tell me that you have some valuable tips for me; techniques that you have used and that I could employ to better get a handle on the time I need to spend managing this place.
Read the entire question and response: When The Urgent Displaces The Important [PDF Version]
LAB responses derive from its members' many years' experience as law firm leaders. Along with Brian and I, the LAB is comprised of the following distinguished current and former law firm leaders: Angelo Arcadipane (Dickstein Shapiro LLP); John Bouma (Snell & Wilmer LLP); Ben F. Johnson, III (Alston & Bird LLP); John R. Sapp (Michael Best & Friedrich LLP); Keith B. Simmons (Bass Berry & Sims PLC); William J. Strickland (McGuire Woods LLP); and Harry P. Trueheart, III (Nixon Peabody LLP).
Post #373 - Monday, February 2, 2009
Making the Wrong Moves
I received access to a new survey conducted last month by Booz and Company of 828 senior managers across the globe. Their research finds that companies—whether financially weak or strong —are struggling to make the right moves in the current economic environment, with many are wavering in their confidence of leadership’s ability to navigate the crisis. This should prove to be worthwhile reading, as it is indicative of the current thinking of some of your firm’s largest clients. Here are some of their findings . . .
• 40% of senior managers doubt that their leadership has a credible plan to address the economic crisis, while an even greater number—46%—are not sure that their leadership could carry out the plan, credible or not.
• One-third of all CEO (and CXO-level respondents) do not have confidence in the plans that they presumably wrote themselves.
• A high number of hard-hit companies—65%—are not doing enough to ensure their own survival, such as accelerating efforts to dispose of assets or secure external funding.
• While more than half (54%) of the managers expect their companies to emerge from the crisis stronger, the survey finds their optimism doesn’t square with their balance sheets; there is a disconnect between many companies’ financial / competitive position and strategic response.
• While struggling and failing companies would be expected to accelerate efforts to improve working capital positions, slash overhead, drive process improvements, and renegotiate deals with suppliers, surprisingly many are not. Between a quarter and a third of respondents say their companies are pursuing such strategies no more aggressively than they were before the crisis.
• The transformational nature of this crisis is evident in the fact that more than half of all senior managers (53%) think their industries will be permanently altered by it. And it’s not just managers at financial services companies who say this—those in energy, industrial goods and consumer businesses are of the same opinion.
This survey explored how well corporate executives are handling the global economic crisis. The responses indicate an uncharacteristic amount of doubt and paralysis among corporate management, and may be explained by an overarching sense that this crisis is so big and fast-moving that there is no way of controlling the outcome.
Post #372 –Monday, January 26, 2009
Searching For Opportunities Amidst The Gloom
 As if the gloom of each day’s economic malaise isn’t enough to deal with, I was perusing my good friend Richard Susskind’s latest treatise – The End of Lawyers? – this past weekend. Richard tells us that the question mark in the title should hint that he is not out to bury lawyers but to investigate the future of the profession. And investigate he does. We are treated to eight chapters rife with observations, predictions, useful anecdotes, marvelously detailed case studies, and presented with the kind of insight that only an IT expert with Richard’s decades of experience could execute.
I was particularly struck by one of his observations concerning how law firms achieve innovation. Richard explains: “Management textbooks might suggest that innovations will flow elegantly from the insights of management consultants, from lengthy strategy documents, from market research, and from away-days devoted to blue-sky, out-of-the-box and lateral thinking. Not a bit of it. The reality is that the overwhelming number of innovations have evolved from the efforts of mavericks within law firms who pursue ideas that are regarded in the early days as peripheral, irrelevant, and even wasteful.”
The efforts of mavericks? HUGE Kudos to Richard Susskind!
A new discipline emerges – maverick management . . . the art of nurturing and encouraging your mavericks.
I not only STRONGLY agree with Richard’s assessment, but I’m reminded of a number of partner retreats I’ve facilitated wherein we had electronic voting machines available to the participants. During a number of those sessions I had the opportunity of posing this question: “How many of you have thought of some new idea, potential new practice or initiative, that has the potential to generate new revenues for the firm?” The usual answer from partners is somewhere in the range of 69 to 83 percent in the affirmative. In other words a good portion of the partnership have some new idea that might have revenue potential. What happens to these ideas?
My follow-up question is: “How many of you have shared your new idea with some member of the firm’s management – be it the managing partner or a member of the executive committee?" I can report (hand on heart) that I rarely elicit a response in the double digits. So why do your partners not share their commercial and potentially lucrative ideas with anyone?
Aside from the usual critical and analytical responses that one would expect any new idea to elicit from their beloved partners: we do not have the time to develop such a practice, I’m not sure anyone else is doing this, my clients wouldn’t be interested, it’s not time for this kind of initiative, and so forth . . . the reality is that most law firms do not have any sort of formal system or infrastructure to nurture new ideas and practices.
So what does this mean? Well if Susskind is right in that mavericks are the research and development departments of the twenty-first century law firm, and my experience suggest that he is dead right – then we need to find the way to gestate and commercialize these new ideas.
Unfortunately there are only a handful of law firms, that I’m aware of, that have figured out how to encourage their mavericks and wrap some strategy and structure around their innovative ideas.
And here is the PUNCHLINE. The firms that I’m thinking of, have initiated (largely at my insistence) a minimal $100,000 internal Venture Fund that is available for partners to access by putting forward their ideas and having their initiatives encouraged and financed. Now that might have seemed frivolous during the boom times, but I think that it is just what a lot of firms need today to encourage enthusiasm, entrepreneurial spirit and innovation amidst the gloom.
Page << Prev 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next >> of 95
|
|
Ashridge House 
