Firm Leadership

Rants, Raves, Rebuttals, Reflections, Revelations & Ruminations

I've been conducting a rather unscientific poll but nevertheless am shocked to discover the number of sophisticated, power partners in professional firms who have succumbed (and readily admit) to having watched Donald Trump's "Apprentice" TV program. Why does anyone watch?

But then I guess one could ask, why did they watch gladiators battle each other in front of an emperor willing to wield the power of life and death. To the Romans it was sports entertainment. Hence their reality show. Today we get to watch and second-guess which contestants go to the suite or street. Not unlike the vicarious thrill of watching great wins and losses in any other spectator sport. We should be thankful there's some humor and no one dies. But have we truly progressed?

I particularly liked the scene where the last two candidates on "Apprentice" were formally anointed as "bosses" over their former co-workers, now forced to be subordinates. Trump says something like, "Now you can feel what it's like to be the boss and have everyone kiss your ass!" This, after berating and "firing" several for not being team players and pompously instructing them about how important it is to get their teams on side because, "you can't do it alone."

Perhaps most pathetically telling of all, are his own smiling subordinates sitting through this drivel, occasionally making oblique references to having to say yes to everything. More often they simply demonstrate that. Does he ask for opinions from others. More often he's asking his subordinates to put into words what he's thinking himself. He poses it like a test for them to prove they can anticipate his exalted views. They are almost always able to do it. That's a definite skill . . . gamesmanship that lets them keep their pathetic jobs a bit longer. While there are plenty of us who wouldn't dream of playing his games, there are apparently even more who would risk any sort of humiliation to get the chance.

In 1968, Robert Rosenthal, a US psychologist, conducted an experiment in a California school district. Certain third-grade students (aged about eight or nine) were told they had scored high on a test measuring their innate academic ability. In this "late bloomer" test, those who scored well were told they had considerable potential and were likely to have a learning spurt in the near future, irrespective of their classroom performance to date. At the end of the school year, the school district found that nearly all the students in question had improved their academic performance, and many of their IQ scores had risen.

But there was no test; the students were simply selected at random. So how can we explain their improved performance? First, teachers' expectations were raised when they were told to expect a learning spurt. They gave the students in question more attention, and the students in turn sensed this enhanced confidence in them and their chances of success.

The Pygmalion experiment, as this study was called, holds some important lessons for leaders. It suggests that people live up to others' expectations of their performance. In other words, people respond to the level of confidence shown in them.

In practice, therefore, it is incumbent upon any leader to be certain that the subordinate is aware of his or her confidence. Conveying the belief that team members can and will exceed expectations helps them do so.

According to a recent study by McKinsey & Company, some 7,300 senior executives around the world believe the global economy has improved in the past six months, but fewer believe that the improvement will carry through the second half of the year.

When asked "What is the single most pressing business concern facing your company over the next 12 months?" all respondents agreed the overall economic climate was crucial, but hiring and retaining talent was also a top concern. HR Consultants who specialize in creative compensation, benefits and employee retention programs will likely find clients open to new approaches, or ideas on how to fix the programs they've already got.

The same report forecasts an increase in merger and acquisition activity in the coming months. According to the study, "consolidation is now a global theme." It should be a good time for consultants providing merger advisory services to buyers or sellers in business combinations. With all the missteps we've seen in post-merger integration activities, consultants who can combine business process redesign, change management and education programs into a cohesive service offering will win more than their fair share of work in this market.

Meanwhile, Thomson Financial reports that corporate insiders continued to sell their own stock last month. For every share they bought, they sold more than 28 shares - bringing to 11 the number of consecutive months sporting a sales-to-purchases ratio greater than 20 to 1. People who follow these things said they had never seen such extreme selling.

Now, if you are like me, and I can only pity you if you are . . . you might be asking yourself, "Why would insiders sell?" There can be a lot of reasons for selling your own stock. But, typically, the ratio of sales to purchases remains around 2.25 to 1. At 28 to 1, something is dramatically different. Could it be . . . that the average investor is bidding more for corporate stock than the people who know it best, think it's worth?

Like Murphy's Laws, these are all tongue in cheek, but remember rule two, before you send that letter to your client:

1. Communication (especially email) usually fails, except by accident.

2. If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes damages.

3. There is always someone who knows better than you what you meant with your message.

4. The more we attempt to communicate, the worse communication succeeds.

5. The more important the situation is, the more likely it is that you forget an essential thing that you remembered a moment ago.

GET THIS . . . According to some of the latest statistics, better people management is truly a new frontier. Chances are, most managers were not promoted to their current position based on having stellar people management skills. When asked, "what percentage of the managers in your organization are good people managers," most organization leaders say ten to twenty percent.

For organizations with 10,000 employees, lack of employee confidence in their manager's leadership skills can equate to at least $28 million in lost productivity dollars, according to a recent study by DDI International. DDI says that groups with strong leaders are about 37 percent more likely to outperform and are significantly more productive than other work groups. The national study revealed employees don't have confidence in their managers' leadership abilities, with only 38 percent expressing high confidence.

Not surprisingly, many of today's managers are the products of poor people managers themselves. Selected from among the best "do-ers," new managers rarely have to qualify as people managers. Too often, people management is not an expectation of manager performance, or any part of management reward or recognition processes. Generations of managers have been "trained" using the "sink or swim" approach. If a manager at any level does not meet budget goals, a replacement is available. In turn, every manager is told to "manage your own way" to get the needed performance. No wonder the performance of different departments varies so widely! In fact, we have traditionally provided little training to managers beyond budget planning or project management and have instead instructed managers to hire those who "don't need managing."

My personal reaction to hearing all this was an involuntary tightening of my throat as I staggered about clutching my heart, and then, according to expert testimony, was enveloped in a confluence of fear and panic in doses that were, according to sensitive instruments developed specifically for the purpose, off the charts!

Plain English supporters around the world (see: www.plainenglish.co.uk) have voted "At the end of the day" as the most irritating phrase in the language. Second place in the vote was shared by "At this moment in time" and the constant use of "like" as if it were a form of punctuation. "With all due respect" came fourth.

The Campaign surveyed its 5000 supporters in more than 70 countries as part of the build-up to its 25th anniversary. The independent pressure group was launched on 26 July 1979. Spokesman John Lister said over-used phrases were a barrier to communication. "When readers or listeners come across these tired expressions, they start tuning out and completely miss the message - assuming there is one! Using these terms in daily business is about professional as wearing a novelty tie or having a wacky ring on your cell-phone.

"George Orwell's advice from 1946 is still worth following: 'Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.'"

The following terms also received multiple nominations: * 24/7 * awesome * ballpark figure * bear with me * between a rock and a hard place * blue sky (thinking) * boggles the mind * bottom line * I hear what you're saying.. * it's not rocket science * pushing the envelope * singing from the same hymn sheet * the fact of the matter is * thinking outside the box * to be honest/to be honest with you/to be perfectly honest

In an article I wrote last Fall entitled: Analyzing Future Trends, I made reference to the following as an example of trends worth keeping an eye on as this may profoundly affect American law firms having a presence in the UK, as well as eventually have impact on this side of the Atlantic:

ITEM: The UK government has announced plans to deregulate the legal industry, allowing mergers between accountants, investment banks and lawyers in England and Wales. David Clementi, former deputy governor of the Bank of England and chairman of Prudential, will head an independent review panel in charge of recommending legislation for a more open legal market, as well as a new agency to oversee the legal profession. The Law Society, which represents 90,000 solicitors, may lose its self-regulating powers.

It is now noteworthy that the long awaited Clementi Consultation paper is out and can be reviewed at www.legal-services-review.org.uk.

My London-based partner, Nick Jarrett-Kerr reports this week: "The profession will of course be totally obsessed with rule changes and the specter of the profession being regulated by a government body rather than the Law Society and Bar Council. We have the rather ludicrous situation that a UK Law Firm can take a foreign lawyer into partnership but not a UK Barrister as the profession is still severed. I think that will change. But I think the biggest change will be in the ownership rules. In the UK, Accountancy Firms can sti ll call themselves that if 51% of the ownership is in accountants' hands. But the Legal profession still requires 100% ownership by Lawyers, and this will undoubtedly change. So outside partners and outside funding will become possibilities. The challenge, therefore, to Law Firms is whether the rules will encourage and lead to the following: large corporations such as Tesco opening up their own captive Law Firms to compete; venture capitalists and other professions investing in the profession; but chiefly, whether firms will do all they need to do to remain competitive and profitable. Apart from anything else, those firms which need funding are unlikely to be sufficiently profitable to attract external investment. One can however see some of the bigger firms going for interesting funding packages to fund investment."

I suspect that this is all going to get far more interesting as time goes on.

It's interesting to me that despite the chorus of "People are our most important asset," in many firms we aren't exactly attacking the challenge of hiring as if our lives depended on it. Jim Collins, who intensively researches successful companies and wrote the bestseller Good to Great, uses the metaphor of "Who's on the bus?" He says that "most organizations don't pay enough attention to getting the right people on the bus. Great companies practice a principle of getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off, and then pointing the bus in the right direction."

Others express similar sentiments. One psychologist, chuckles when talking about firms that have a two-month process to approve a $10,000 purchase of a copying machine, but can hire someone after about a half-hour's investigation. Too many rely on gut instinct in their hiring decisions. A disciplined approach is better. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Focus on the right stuff. Pinpoint specific skills necessary for success. Frame interview questions to reveal whether the candidate has what it takes.

2. Dig up the past. Get specific examples of how a candidate has handled different situations.

3. Realize that three heads are better than one. Ask colleagues to interview a candidate and share their findings with you.

4. Put your candidate at ease. You'll get better answers and make a good impression.

5. Seek a balanced view. No candidate is as perfect as you hope he or she is. Seek a frank discussion of strengths and weaknesses.

Watch any o f those mind-numbing reality dating shows currently airing, and you'll see couples actually getting to know each other. Some of us could learn a lot from these shows when it comes to hiring.

When we hear about jobs moving overseas -somehow it suggests progress. But news of software-programming and radiology positions being outsourced to Romania and India has a more visceral impact. Yet technology and toppling trade barriers have left white-collar jobs as vulnerable to overseas migration as those in blue-collar industries.

"I'm nervous," says the ordinarily buoyant management guru Tom Peters. "I don't think there's any job that's safe right now." After all, notes USC management professor Ian Mitroff, "if finance and engineering-design jobs can be moved offshore, what can't be moved?"

If you find this trend disquieting in principle, check out these numbers: A recent U.C. Berkeley study estimated that some 14 million U.S. white-collar jobs - 11 percent of all jobs - are at risk of being outsourced. That's significantly higher than the widely reported Forrester Research forecast of 3.3 million jobs lost over the next 15 years, not to mention the 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost in the last three years. And who can blame U.S. companies for looking east for lower personnel costs? The Berkeley researchers, Ashok Deo Bardhan and Cynthia A. Kroll, note that Indian telephone operators earn under $1 an hour, payroll clerks just $2, paralegals $8 or less.

Peters is fast losing faith: "I'm unnerved by this jobless recovery; I'm a lot less confident than I was 18 months ago," he says. "For 15 years, this was the pattern: We lost a manufacturing job to Mexico; we added a service job in New York - or better yet, 1.5 service jobs. I'm uncomfortable with that simplistic notion, now that we are losing high-paying jobs at an unprecedented rate - especially those damn tech jobs that we got only five years ago. It's not clear to me where the replac ement jobs will come from. I think we have every right to be worried."

Thomas Edison is famous for his phrase, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." We celebrate his birthday, on February 11. Anyway, I do. More than any man in history, Edison created a system for inventing. His organization patented inventions by the hundreds: 1,093 successful U.S. patents, plus over 1,200 foreign patents.

He also filed between 500 and 600 patents that were abandoned. This doesn't count the nonstarters that did not get patented at all. So, he had his share of failures. But he developed a system, based on perspiration -- grunt work -- that produced a stream of winners over many decades.

Most people don't like grunt work. Those who do like it tend not to be creative. It is the unique personal combination of a willingness to do grunt work coupled with the ability to import and apply seemingly unrelated information into the process that produces innovations.

I don't think this ability can be taught. I do think that people who innately have this ability at some point must place themselves in an environment that combines attention to details with sufficient freedom to enable a person to pursue unfamiliar trails. If there is an area of your life in which you care enough to become aware of differences that other people don't perceive, you have a competitive advantage.