Firm Beliefs

Presidents, Leaders and 'the little stakeholders'

Why does the leader of a country describe the success of his country’s development in terms of the impact on the individual citizens and stakeholder groups in that country when the leaders of a law firm and a national charity hardly refer to their staff and other stakeholders at all when describing the success of their organisational strategies?  A question that occurred to me last week whilst I was attending the Legatum conference ‘Economic Liberty to Promote Growth: How enterprise can alleviate poverty and offer hope in developing nations.’  President Saakashvili of Georgia was the keynote speaker over lunch, followed by the great and the good of the development world as part of a double panel afternoon at the National Liberal club. 

(Actually that wasn’t the first question that occurred to me. The first question was how come a man younger than I can achieve what he has done? A sign of awareness of anno domini on my part I guess!)

The conference raised many questions after that first one (or two). 

In relation to the woman who approached me saying ‘I sit on think thanks you know’, I wondered, is there such a thing as a do tank? Reading the Economist this week, it was peppered with words to the wise from think tankers.  Another blog I guess but I did wonder who pays these people, who regulates them, who judges their view.  I thought it in particular even more when the woman thinktanker proudly told me that she had a CD Rom with the complete works of the key western thinkers on the economy, which she would give to those who were from emerging economies. She did not have one with non-western views on.  ‘That doesn’t matter. They only need western views to be honest’ she said.  ‘Why do emerging nations have to only read western works?’ I asked her. ‘Because they have no models of their own’  she said. I politely (I could have said so much more...) reminded her that people in far off lands get up, survive and go to bed – if they have not devised models for survival and growth, then what have they done?  And, as one participant asked the panel later, what is so good about western thinking on the economy...  A rather pertinent point given the current climate.

In relation to the point made by Dr Dambisa Moyo that charity donations to Africa have hindered development not helped it (read her excellent book 'Dead Aid') I thought of all those charities for whom the mantra ‘give us money and ask not what impact we make but how it makes you feel to give’ is key to their strategy.  Reflected also in the CSR policies of many law firms at the moment who seem to be saying ‘let’s distribute a fair amount of cash amongst a large amount of charities and leave it at that’. No reference to supply chain scrutiny or to an identification of how more than charitable giving is needed if society is really to change.  (Get businesses in to the countries.  Align the raison d'etre of your law firm with the need to make a social impact. Sadly that advice must still also be given to charities...)

And in relation to a question asked from the floor and the response by one of the panel, it is clear that many who inhabit the ‘development world’ don’t know what civil society means or even that it needs to be defined before the discussion starts. (See my slideshow in relation to that very question when I stood up in front of a number of the great and good of the ‘third sector world’ in Windsor Castle and challenged them to think of it as just a space – with not very much doing going on in, just a lot of thinking, no action. Whoops, back to think tanks again...)

But it was the speech by first the President and then his ex-prime minister Lado Gurgenidze which resonated with me.   I had heard just a few days before an interview with the senior partner  of one of the largest international law firms about the success, and barriers to success, that the firm has achieved and hopes to achieve in the future. All very sensible.  Not particularly dramatic or awe inspiring. Just plain strategic common sense.  I also had a conversation with the CEO of a national charity. What were the aims of the charity for the next year.   Again, strategically sound.  Risk averse. No chances taken with others’ donated funds.  Similarly, both the President and the ex-prime minister talked about their country’s planned elevation from soviet control to a democratic, ethically principled, incorrupt society. New markets. New laws (but not too many it was emphasized, bureaucracy being a place for corrupt practices to flourish). They were in effect describing the strategy of an organisation. But it seemed to me that their points regarding strategic choice were peppered with references to the individuals in the country – the police, the demonstrators, the workers, the investors.  How they thought, how their behaviour and demands had played an impact, what the feedback had been from them.  It was only then that I noticed how little the law firm head and the charity head had failed to mention,  often at all but certainly in as much detail, the needs and hopes and inbuilt prejudices and behavioural patterns of their own stakeholders. 

What does this say about them all? Many things I guess. Not everybody thinks that stakeholders are key to the achieving of the percentage increase in market share, or to the entry into new markets.  And if they do, not everybody sees the need to relate the aims of their objectives and the success of their objectives to those stakeholders. And if they do it may be that as the ‘leaders of the organisation’ they feel that big picture thinking does not require them to illustrate their choices with detail and, if they do, they feel that perhaps that is up to others (marketing comms people perhaps or head of HR even) to talk about ‘that side of things’. (I did a quick unscientific straw poll amongst contacts to ask them why they felt some leaders did and some didn’t. Many of their answers are unbloggable!)  To my mind, I think that were more law firm CEOs and charity CEOs up for re-election by their key stakeholders, they might have them at the forefront of their mind more often.

So, having decided to take a day away from law firm and charity sector strategic work, or developing skills in their executives and leaders, I spent much of the time pondering the day job anyway.  It all comes down to the same thing: if a country, an organisation, an individual wants to get from A to B, they need to take into account ‘the small things and the small people’ otherwise for whom are they achieving this success?  And if the smallness is not taken into account, is the overarching bigger picture going to be flawed?  It reminds me of the advice to so many organisations and individuals who talk general concepts and big picture thinking, and who fail to achieve very much because their discussions are not bounded in reality. Oh dear, back to the think tanks again...

 

The legal sector - what you might need to know

Inundated as we are at the moment with requests to find good lawyers, to speak at conferences to those seeking to find good legal services and to those seeking to engage with the sector to find mutual opportunities, we thought you might like an overview.

• This sector is undergoing the most cataclysmic change for centuries.
• Treat the provider of legal advice as you would any other service provider. Ask the same questions, expect the same service delivery and outcomes as for any other service provider within your business life.
• If you are seeking to work with lawyers as business partners, do not assume the same level of understanding of business risk and opportunity as your own.
• If you are considering referring contacts and clients/customers to lawyers, ensure the lawyers are commercially savvy enough not to risk damaging your reputation as a referrer by how they handle your contact.
• Do not assume however that all lawyers are 'fair game' when it comes to increasing your own networks and that they will want to allow you access to their clients. Lawyers are risk averse, are governed by specific rules and regulations regarding referrals and referral fees, and will often have existing and well- managed beneficial relationships of long standing with other multipliers.

Who can now provide legal advice?

Qualified legal professionals (barristers, solicitors, legal executives etc) no longer hold the monopoly on the provision of most types of legal advice. This means that their own market space is changing and that the threat from hitherto unknown competition for the provision of legal services is causing them to look afresh at their own organisations’ ability to answer the demands from their client markets.

Who can now own a legal services business?

Solicitors and barristers are facing the threat/opportunity of entering into business ownership arrangements with non legally qualified individuals. In some cases, it means that advice will be provided by organisations which have management/business focused systems and individuals in place to ensure that delivery of the service is commercially appropriate, effectively delivered and at a cost and a method that suits the receiver. In other words, services will be provided by business focused individuals, not just professionally qualified individuals.

These elements may be present within the one person (ie a qualified lawyer who understands business concepts) or by a team who have all elements present. They may be present within an organisation largely owned by legal professionals, or they may be present within an organisation largely owned by non-legal professionals.

How can services be delivered?

The delivery of legal services is no longer dependent upon traditional methods of provision. The internet and the use of information technology software ensures that services can be delivered in a myriad of ways, designed and targeted to meet the needs of the individual or organisation requiring the service.

 

The implications of this, if you are seeking to engage with lawyers as a way of receiving legal advice, are:

1. You have far greater choice than before
The choice of legal services provider is now far wider in terms of not just the technical legal advice you receive, but now combined with (1) method of service delivery (2) at a cost that is appropriate for you.

2. Look for an advisor who understands not just the law but also your own strategic marketplace and helps you enhance your own position within that market place.
There are those individuals who understand the changing nature of market forces and who understand that, on the basis that knowledge of the law is fairly consistent within the market place (generally speaking), it is the quality of the service that is key to choice. Those individuals will look to provide added value to the legal services relationship (such as introducing you to their contacts and clients to ensure that your businesses are enhanced by your relationship with them). Look for those who understand the nature of your business, and the strategic forces that will shape your business. They are the ones who will align the legal advice they provide with your own strategic needs. Many have international offices, connections and clients. Ensure that you benefit from that.

3. Look for individuals who understand their own marketplace.
Those firms that are open about their own business strategy for market growth, penetration or consolidation are likely to understand your own needs as well. Look for legal services organisations who take an interest in the business of legal services and the business of their clients’ market sectors. They are likely to include, within their own methodology for the delivery of service, individuals who are business and management trained either lawyers or professional managers.

4.Take advantage of changes in relationships within the legal services marketplace.
There are changes in the relationships between the different professionals within the legal services sector. For example, barristers can now advise clients without the need for the intermediary solicitor.  There are still some barriers to this – there is much detail about when and how this can be achieved, but there are changes. If considering using barristers direct, ensure that the chambers that you use is commercially savvy. Their specialist knowledge of a legal issue is but one area you need to check. The reality of the delivery of the relationship is key as well.  There are a number of important questions to ask before you engage a barrister direct. One such is how does the chambers manage its direct access clients. This will very much depend upon the strength of the management of the chambers itself. Many chambers have rearranged their internal management towards good business and management practices which ensure that they are able to deliver timely appropriate advice to their direct clients. Although not exclusively the case, those chambers that still tend to use the name ‘chief/head clerk’ are sometimes less ‘client savvy/focused’ than those who have changed titles to ‘Director of Services’ or ‘CEO’.  Always ask, whatever the titles are that are used within Chambers, how chambers manages the relationship with clients and what added value (such as introduction to contacts etc) is provided as part of the direct relationship with you. Increasingly, barristers and solicitors, and other professionals, are working together and operating within new models of service provision with the result that the client receives focused advice and representation in a way not hitherto allowed.

 

The implications of this, if you are seeking to engage with lawyers as a way of doing business with them as business partners/contacts/referrers, are:

1. Many of the issues above tell you that how a legal services provider responds to their client needs is an indicator of whether they will be of any value to you, and you to them, in furthering the aims and needs of your own organisation

2. Many multipliers/those seeking referrals from legal professionals assume that (1) they have cash to spend in building relationships and are willing to wait for business success to take place and (2) that they are business savvy and will immediately see the benefit in any relationship with you.

3. In relation to cash and in relation to the time taken for business projects to develop, many law firms were cash poor/profit poor even before the recession hit. The changing nature of the legal services market caused the weakening of many law firms who did not see the threat nor the opportunity of such a change and found themselves caught out as competitors adapted quickly to the needs of clients. Add to this the recession... So do not assume that lawyers have cash to invest in new projects nor that they will allow the time to wait for the projects to develop.

4. If you do find a commercially savvy individual legal professional, make sure that you understand their power within their organisation. For many legal professionals still working within the traditional partnership structure of a law firm, their ability to have any sway within the organisation in relation to commercial decisions is limited if they are not a partner with an ownership stake. Similarly, if your relationship is with one of the professional managers, make sure they too have power. You may find that although they have a title ‘Head of Client Markets or Marketing’, the reality is that they have been given a title but with little strategic power as it is often sadly still the case that the legal professionals hold control over the future of the firm.

5. Do not assume that, even if the idea for a joint venture/relationship that you are proposing to a law firm is commercially sound for both you and for them, that (1) they will understand that and (2) that they will now what to do with it. You need to (1) sell the benefits to them of the venture/your idea and (2) also tell them how to go about making it a success. Those firms that are commercially minded are likely to want to take the discussions further and will drill down with you what the outcomes are likely to be, do their due diligence etc and will be able to both see the value and implement the activities necessary for the relationship to be a fruitful one. So be prepared for your proposal or offering to stand up to their scrutiny because many lawyers will use the same logical detailed approach to a business proposition as they would to a legal one.  But there are many that won’t have the skills to do this. So you will have to. Which means that you will have to understand the nature of their world, as you would have to for any other sector with which you are seeking to engage.

As advisors to to the legal sector, we are well acquainted with the legal services market place and with the individuals within it. We also advise those who are seeking to find the most appropriate legal advice, based on our knowledge of the individuals within the sector, and we work with other sectors who seek to partner with the legal profession in their efforts to delivered multi sectored packages to mutual clients. For further information as to how we can help those from other sectors to engage with the legal sector, or how we can help legal services professionals engage with other sectors, please contact: Sara Dixon or Gareth Mason on 01296 620006 – further details on our website:

www.firmbeliefs.co.uk

Leadership - it's a group thing

Gareth Mason on looking at 'isolated leadership' 

 

Begin to talk about leadership and almost everyone seems to home in on individuals, we all know the list of names - it's long and distinguished!  Funny how all (OK, well the great majority) seem to have emerged during times of strife and emergency.  Rapidly decisive and highly directive seem to be core personality traits.  Not to mention a cracking instinct for finding the right words for the right moment and ‘profile management'.

 

Relatively few of those who've led in ‘normal' times make the list.  But they've probably had just as complex issues to deal with and have steered their organisations through the labyrinth to long term success which deserves as much admiration.  ‘Rapidly decisive and highly directive' are further down the list of competences for them - their times have required quite a different mix of leadership styles.

 

Ask about leadership in law firms and the names that come out are pretty much those who have been seen externally as the one driving force of a dramatically successful firm.  For instances - Leslie Perrin at Osborne Clarke, Paul Rhodes at Dibb Lupton (yes I go back to the nineties myself) and (into modern times) Neville Eisenberg at BLP.  But behind the press headlines there's been (or still is) a group of partners with them who see the world the same way.  In truth those firms succeeded because they had a cohesive group leading them.

 

The law firms I mainly come across do not always contain these bigger names but leadership is no less fundamental to them.  I've seen a lot of different personalities and a number of different approaches.  Where I've seen the individual ‘very strong character' directive style working is when the firm is in a great deal of bother - and the partners recognise their predicament (and when they don't it is a slightly different matter of course!).  I've also seen it being used where the firm is not in a difficult position and by and large it then seems to create more problems than it solves.  I've seen firms who were in difficulty get out of it with this individual leadership approach - but then the individual continues with the same style resulting in a different if no less dangerous set of problems.

 

Summing it up, few successful firms I have seen are led by just one person dragging everyone else along.  I've come to the view that a very dominant individual without a group of like minded partners with them is at best a short term solution in difficult times which, for the firm's health, needs evolving once the crisis is behind the firm.  Changing leadership styles is not easy and not within everyone's gift by a long way - if it is possible then it will be with a lot of conscious work from not just the individual but other partners too.  But once out of the woods that is what a firm may need to deal with.

 

All in all, effective leadership for the long term should be, for most partnerships, a ‘group thing'.

 

The firms that I have seen achieve the most have had a group who have all been ‘on the same page'.  That is a number of partners, around five or six (more would be great but is rarer) in a partnership of fifteen to twenty, who have a very similar view of the firm's future, the issues it faces, actions it should take and the style that best suits what is needed.  They may not always have agreed but they've worked it out rather than rowed in public.  They are able to get around the partnership and have those lunch and corridor conversations that oil the wheels and get across the intentions when something is not going as well as planned.  When something difficult arises they help each other rather than make it even more difficult.

 

These groups are not just elected (‘Oh, it's your turn now').  They are not necessarily the whole or a whole part of the firm's management board.  They can be informal at least to begin with but each person will carry ‘clout' in one part of the firm or other and usually ends up with a formal role.  I've seen them contain a ‘wise owl' who does not have a formal role which has been a real benefit and played, on occasion, a crucial role at a critical time.

 

These groups don't materialise overnight and immediately deliver.  They mostly seem to evolve.  However, a firm that has a formal approach to developing its management will find a way to consciously create them and will be all the more successful for doing so.  Those of you who have done some management development may remember the ‘forming, storming, norming, performing' descriptor - well it's true!

 

Some firms have a non-lawyer Chief Executive and this person necessarily has to feel part of this group.  I have seen partnerships where he/she has not been included in this group (forget what's written in the job description, it's whether it is honoured in the breach or not) and at best they then have a fairly expensive administrator on their payroll; anyway the good ones soon leave!

 

And it is not only a cohesive leadership group that a firm needs to be successful long term.  Although leadership fundamentally comes from within the partnership don't underestimate the supporting role to that leadership which the support management team can play.  It is all too often forgotten about.  Developing that management team, getting the right people into the roles, understanding each other's areas and how they inter-relate (they all do), having the same objectives and being taken into the confidence of the group leading the firm is all part of a well-led firm.

 

 

Value added dinner?

Have you ever found yourself sitting in your car at traffic lights looking at everyone else around you and thinking, ‘I wonder what has brought them to the same place at this precise moment’, only to drive away and not know.  Well last night I knew the answer to that question.  Last night I was part of  small group of travellers from different walks of life converging on The Caledonian Club SW1. 

 

Travelling Up Town is a favourite acitivity of mine, the tube going into London against those travelling home, plenty of seats and half empty carriages.  Stepping out of a London cab outside the Caledonian Club at 7:15pm completed my journey. 

 

I pushed the large doors open and took a step back in time, a Gentleman’s Club, the new venue for Firm Elite Dinner Parties.  I climbed the large staircase to the Selkirk Room  where I met my dinner guests for the evening. 

 

Those of you who have not had the opportunity or the inclination to attend one of these occasions have missed the unique atmosphere and friendship which you encounter as you start to mingle.  We were invited to sit at a round table in the middle of the room, which I would call 'Posh' (in an old English way) but made me feel that for this moment I belonged.

 

The food was excellent, starting with a warm smokie something and, just as I was getting to know my neighbour, we played a game called musical  chairs,  without the music and with no chairs being taken away.  This is a cunning plan to get us to mix with more than one person - it has its risks, the wine glass, the half eaten roll - do you take it with you or have you got to drink some else’s wine and put up with their breadcrumbs?!

 

Having negotiated the move we all settled down to Breast of Guinea Fowl stuffed with spinach, wonderful.  We were then asked the  question  “What is Success?” and “What is Added Value?”; suddenly the evening came alight and the small talk that had preceded this moment  stopped and everyone was engaged for the next couple of hours, which flew past.

 

How do we measure success? Do we measure it by the bench mark given to us by others or do we set our own bench mark?  Do we include our values, beliefs, persuasions, or is business business,  and our private lives private?  Or is success being happy about where you are at this moment, happy in your own skin?

 

How do you measure added value? Is it something we bring to the table, is it something we learn, pick up, or is it something we have worked on for years?  From whose point of view is it added?  How do we assess what is the added value that we bring to clients, contacts and those with whom we interract every day? And TRUST - can you trust me, could you, would you pass my details on to a close friend or valued client or contact?  Yes - being able to trust, feeling safe about someone and what they can do, is adding value to our other contacts as we make recommendations about those we know.

 

It was personal, intimate, with the conversation bouncing around the table.  Sharing personal anecdotes, about kids, grandchildren, golf, prostitutes, politics, work, business.  If you had been in the room watching you could have been forgiven for thinking that we were long lost friends catching up , and there’s the thing, there was trust, friendship and fellowship all mixed up with the iced caramel whiskey parfait and coffee. 

 

It was a most enjoyable evening without the TV and pressures of getting something done, just being amongst other people who care about how and why we do what we do and who always have in mind that maybe we can do it together?

Peter Waine  Simply Secure Solutions

Update on getting solar panels to Haiti

Cathay Pacific, as far as things stand at the moment, will be transporting the solar panels.  As a response to Warren Lancaster's request for transport to help get the the solar panels from Hong Kong to Haiti, Norton Rose partners contacted Cathay Pacific and they have agreed to transfer the panels free of charge. This means that more panels can be purchased from the donated funds.  The initial cargo will be either 6000 or 8000 sets of lights; the final number will depend on the logistics of transporting them. Mobile phone connectors will also be sent.

Background: Warren Lancaster of Geneva Global requested help from contacts.  A donation had been made to purchase solar panels from Tough Stuff to transport to Haiti.  The panels are in Hong Kong.  Firm Eliters and Firm Beliefs clients and contacts were emailed on Thursday morning 14th January.  As a result, numerous individuals and organisations offered help, with the end result that Cathay Pacific are liaising directly with Tough Stuff to arrange transport.

Those who responded to the call for help, including contacting their own clients and contacts, were many but particular thanks must go to Deborah Jeff and one of her clients; Neil Grant, Simon Card, David Howells, Ron Wallace and Ken Cohen.  And of course to John Wood of Norton Rose and his partners.  And donations have also been made both to the Geneva Global fund and to Merlin, a charity with which one of our Firm Eliters is directly involved as Chair of Ambassadors.

Many thanks to all.