Firm Leadership

Rants, Raves, Rebuttals, Reflections, Revelations & Ruminations

Returning from an extended client assignment in Europe I was reflecting upon how strange it is that we have become immune to the possibilities of something bad happening to us -- either personally, with our firm, or our families; if we don't alter our behavior. Nothing bad has happened so far so why should we change now?

Take for example that it's been forty years since Alfred Hitchcock's macabre thriller The Birds scared the devil out of audiences worldwide. And now the nightmare might be back. China, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Russia, Canada, Turkey, Cambodia, North Korean, Romania, Croatia, Mongolia, South Africa, Sweden -- what do all of these countries have in common? H5N1. A dry scientific notation for what could turn out to be the biggest pandemic of this century - Avian Flu.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is a nasty little virus that has a near 100% mortality rate in flocks that it infects. The virus can remain viable at moderate temperatures for long periods of time and can survive indefinitely in frozen material. Up to now the medical problem has predominantly centered on avian species, from chickens to turkeys, ducks and even wild birds. The virus is highly contagious amongst the bird population, but can only infect humans through contact with infected birds. With no less than 16 countries around the world affected registering 114 human cases so far, the ultimate fear is that H5N1 could mutate and spread through human to huma n rather than just bird to human interaction. Should that happen, the widespread epidemic could kill millions. Europeans and Asians view this threat very seriously.

Yet, here in North America, most have been blissfully ignorant to the dangers that may await us. The majority of Americans have shrugged off the alarming headlines under some magical belief that this epidemic will affect everyone but us. There are many reasons why most Americans feel a tad bit skeptical. Last year, the media created a lot of fanfare about the disastrous consequences of the upcoming flu season because of the huge shortage of flu shots. Unsurprisingly, nothing terrible actually happened. Too many doomsday scenarios (anyone remember Y2K?) have inured most of us from taking warnings too seriously. And odds are . . . that eventually . . . that could just be our undoing!

Recently, a client asked me to sit in and help review their practice presentation in response to an RFP invitation. They were interviewing with a major corporate client and were nervous, as they had been less than successful in a number of their recent pitches. They attributed their poor showing to a shift in the marketplace, increased competition, and prospects who were becoming increasingly sophisticated.

I sat back and watched them go through a well-rehearsed and rather slick presentation. First they talked about their firm's long history in the profession, and some of the impressive clients they had worked with. Then they presented their unique process and their wonderful team. Finally, they closed with a number of testimonial comments from other satisfied clients.

This was clearly a presentation designed to impress the prospective client (or maybe themselves) about them. It was now clear to me why they were striking out -- and why they were destined to fail again!

All too frequently, firm's pitch prospects focused only on how they think they differ from their competitors, what unique process they have that the other guy doesn't, and how successful they've been in the past. Nothing at all in this presentation talked to the specific situation, the needs of this particular client, an understanding of this client's industry or what specific rewards the pros pect could enjoy as a result of doing business with this firm. Too many pitches are like that old actor's joke. "Well, I guess I've talked enough about me. Now it's your turn. So, what do you think of me?"

WHAT would happen to your business if China invaded Taiwan? How would your clients rea ct if the US adopted an isolationist foreign policy? Where would your growth come from if globalization were reversed?

It might sound so far-fetched as to be irrelevant but global law firm Clifford Chance has commissioned one of its biggest strategic reviews to find out the answers so that it is prepared if any of the scenarios come about. According to Chief Executive Peter Cornell: "We've always done regular reviews in different offices or areas of the firm, but this time we want the big picture. We want to understand our risks and opportunities over the next 10 years, from 30,000ft."

Ten months ago, Cornell commissioned a consultancy that uses 1000 academics across the world to predict geopolitical developments, to work on the review of its global strategy. Apparently Clifford Chance wanted to react to the fact that the share of international power is shifting and that the centre of gravity is moving towards Asia. They wanted to think through how these changes in particular would affect their company, staff and clients and how to adapt to them."

The consultancy drew up three different scenarios designed to allow the firm's management to consider how its work - and that of its clients - could be affected over the next decade. The results of the review were delivered to Clifford Chance and Cornell has appointed teams to work out over the next few months how strategy should be altered. The most immediate effect is that the firm plans to implement a structural change -- it will be less practice-based and more geographically focused. Instead of seeing its divisions as, say, banking or energy practices, it will think in terms of China, North America or Latin America.

There is a much-blogged-about article, "The Tech Evolution: Change or Die", written by Laura Owen, Director, Worldwide Legal Services at Cisco Systems Inc. Owen warns lawyers to "innovate" or accept the consequences. So, give us the truth Laura, straight up, no chaser!

(1) Commoditize routine legal transactions.

(2) Create consortia to share needed work.

(3) Move your legal work to low cost firms located in the Midwest, South or other regions away from high cost centers.

(4) Bundle work for leverage.

(5) Use technology, not lawyer s, to perform legal work.

(6) Create competition by always bidding your legal work.

(7) Set milestones for law firms and give rewards for exceeding goals (or penalties for missing the mark).

(8) Move 80 percent of your fees to a non-billable hour basis.

I just noticed that Wilmer Cutler in conjunction with Harvard Business School and Chicago's Seyfarth Shaw with Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management have followed Reed Smith and DLA Piper Rudnick in initiating formal collaborative efforts to train their current and future leaders. While the details of each program vary, the goal is simple - - apply the MBA template to law firm leaders. GIVE ME A BREAK!

''Most people with MBAs can't manage themselves out of a paper bag,'' says Winans International CEO Ken Winans, who has an MBA from the University of San Francisco (1987) and teaches MBA students at Saint Mary's College in Moraga, California.

Two decades ago, Henry Mintzberg, a professor at McGill University who was then teaching MBAs at MIT, discovered a profound "disconnect between the practice of management . . . and what went on in classrooms." "Conventional MBA programs train the wrong people in the wrong ways with the wrong consequences," states Mintzberg in his latest book, Managers Not MBAs. He believes MBA programs are schools of business that pretend to develop managers.

Meanwhile a big blow came with the Academy of Management Learning and Education, when bestselling business author and management scholar Jeffrey Pfeffer, of Stanford, no less, examined 40 years of research and concluded there was scant evidence those with an MBA better their careers or fortunes.

Even management consultants McKinsey & Co. have reduced dramatically the percentage of their hires with MBAs over the past decade, because they find students with law, medical and other degrees equally successful. ''We don't believe the world's best talent is exclusively locked up on MBA campuses,'' says McKinsey spokesman Andrew Giangola.

This all leaves us only to wonder which major law firm will be next to follow this misguided trend to its obvious conclusion . . .

Once again, The Washington Post has published the winning submissions to its yearly contest in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words.

A few of the winners are:

* Coffee (n.): the person upon whom one coughs.

* Flabbergasted (adj.): appalled over how much weight you have gained.

* Abdicate (v.): to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

* Negligent (adj.): describes a condition in which you absentmindedly answer the door in your nightgown.

* Balderdash (n.): a rapidly receding hairline.

* Pokemon (n): a Rastafarian proctologist.

* Circumvent (n.): an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.

In a book I was reading on marketing, the author suggested that customers have the following motivations for their various purchases:

Don't sell me clothes. Sell me a sharp appearance, style, and attractiveness.

Don't sell me insurance. Sell me peace of mind and a secure future for my family.

Don't sell me a house. Sell me comfort, contentment, a good long-term investment and pride of ownership.

Don't sell me books. Sell me pleasant leisure hours and the profits acquired by accumulated knowledge.

So . . . I got thinking. I wonder how lawyers would answer: Don't see me legal services, sell me . . .

The Conference Board's latest survey of CEOs shows that chief executives across the country are significantly less confident about the U.S economy now than they were in the first quarter.

"While overall confidence remains relatively positive, the latest reading reflects growing concerns that U.S. economic growth may be slowing down," says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center. "And, while the outlook for corporate profits remains optimistic, rising interest rates and oil prices may curb business leaders' projections."

The survey also illustrates that the majority of CEO's don't expect economic conditions to improve in the short-term, either.

Hmmm ... when "Captains of Industry" start acknowledging the dismal state of U.S. economy, we know things can't be good.