Why I love being a chameleon - or why consultants get it so wrong with charities and law firms

'How can you work with them? Doesn't it take ages to establish a relationship - for them to see your value? They don't want to be successful really do they?' So said a consultant who had tried to break into the legal services market place a while ago. And given up!  The pages of LinkedIn are littered with consultants bemoaning the awfulness of charities and of law firms and of those who work in them. Why don't they take risks, can't they see the value in developing people or new markets?  Why can't they see opportunities?  Why are they so slow to make decisions? Etc Etc.

The consultant in me hears, recognises and sympathises. 

The ex-lawyer in me asks 'what are you talking about? Why should I? The world is unclear. I cannot do anything about that? I will make small scale short term decisions because that is what I know.  What do you mean 'strategy in a fluid environment?  Strategy is action?  Changing business models confuse me.  I will merge when we are in such a state as it is our only way to survive. Or to grow a little bit. Or to get new clients by taking theirs and then  hiving their firm down.  I can manage medium to short term earnings figures.  Everything else is a mystery and can only be a mystery to me.  Because there are no ways of working out what the future holds and what  can I do about that? So go away and leave me where I am. By the time the wotsit really hits the fan, I will be retired. Money out. Risk gone.'

The ex-charity trustee in me asks 'Hang on. We have no cash for you.  We need to get more donors that is all. They will come. If we worry enough. And network enough.  I don't care about competition.  People see the value in what we do. As long as we make the right impact, it doesn't matter about our own marketplace or competition from others.  And who can work out what the future holds?  There is nothing we can do about that anyway'.

The business person in me says: 'There are skills you can employ to give certainty regarding some aspects of the future.  There are ways of generating options which can be quite technical. But they can be helpful. And learnt by you. '

In essence, it comes down to 'they don't know what they don't know'.  There are all sorts of things my computer could do that I don't know about.  So I am not going to ask about that which I don't know about - because I don't know about it.  And you don't know that I don't know so you are not really going to hit the spot when talking to me about what my computer can do - you assume I do know but am just not interested. More fool me, etc. 

So if you want to work with law firms and charities, assume no knowledge of what you know. Or at least not all of it.  And don't treat them like idiots. They are not.  They know different things that you don't know after all. (I know it sounds simple and possibly simplistic to some - but we pick up the pieces after other consultants have offended, acted arrogantly etc. with clients.)  Then take time to explain the skills that can help them with the future.  In other words, that there are skills that exist. 

Now, you may say that some of them don't have that time.  The decision as to whether to take the time is yours - not theirs.  If they are too late, so be it.  There are plenty of excellent law firms and excellent charities out there who are always broadening their horizons, listening and learning, and succeeding in providing a future for their organisations.  And who do value what consultants can provide for them.  A few who don't may not be missed.   But there are a few who, if you just spend a little more time understanding how they think, and that they don't know what they don't know, may become some of your most exciting clients.   The choice is yours.

Big Society - but do we know who we are first?

Recent conversations with some people from the third sector/civil society/charity sector/social enterprise sector (why are there so many labels without commonly understood definitions these days?!) have made me ask, in the words of the great Terry Wogan, 'Is it Me?'  I am not easily silenced but the past few days of chat have stumped me.

[Incidentally, I once had to deliver a talk to leaders of the third sector (however defined) about the definition of civil society.  At the time my conclusion was that it was a space - where there was a real risk of inactivity as they were all working to defend that space from outsiders...  One of the feedback comments was 'Great legal analysis with just a hint of a kick up the **** for us all'.  If you want to see what I said, go to Resources]

Take my recent conversation with a charity trustee. 'Sara, we are not the private sector. We are not in the habit of looking to beat competition.'  Hmm.  We discussed where the charity obtained funding. 'The government and private donors,' said he.  We discussed who else wanted funding from the same sources. 'Plenty of others,' said he. Point made. He took it.  He faced competition for funding.  By defining the charity as NOT the private sector, he missed the chance to understand the context in which the charity operated.

Take the case of the charity which faced losing funding from a major donor who had decided he wanted to invest instead in a social enterprise.  The charity's aims were the same as the social entrepreneur's aims.  The charity could not believe that an investor could find a social impact for his investment 'in a for profit organisation'. In the end, we may manage a three way relationship - true 'collaboration'.  Again, though, by seeing the charity initially as separately sitting in its own silo, it could not see that donors look for the outcome first, not necessarily the mode of organisational structure that delivers the outcome. 

I have a similar 'but can't you see...' thought whenever I come across a charity executive or trustee who says 'we are not for profit'.  That is not actually what they mean.  They cannot be loss making.  So they must either break even or make a profit.  It is what they do with the profit that distinguishes them for 'for profits'.  (Incidentally there is an excellent book by Dan Pallotta called 'Uncharitable: how restraints on non-profits undermine their potential' in which he discusses this use of terminology and the consequent impact it has on thinking in charities.)   Again, definition without thinking of what it really means can cause barriers to be placed between organisations that in reality have more in common than difference.

So we see the words 'for profit', 'business', 'competition', 'commerciality' etc all being associated with 'the area of the world we don't like and don't operate within or with' much of the time.

There are thankfully some excellent charities.  The ones who will be listening to the debate about and plans for the Big Society with enthusiasm and strategic thinking. For whom the following words by Lord Dalston in Parliament on 16th June are NOT anathema:

As long as 'businesslike' is associated by charities with 'that which we are not', charities will exclude themselves from participating in society's wider aims for social impact, justice, betterment etc.  In the words of Anais Nin, 'We do not see things as they are; we see things how we are.'  The extension of this is that for charities there is a danger that they will see things how they think  they themselves are - not the reality of how they are. 

So, we need to question terminology, adopt not just a common language but also be clear about the meaning to that common language.  And we should not assume that because a word is associated with that which we think we are not, that the meaning of it does not apply to us.  So before we can see how we can fit within the plans for the Big Society, let's make sure we know we belong in it, however we define ourselves.

Impact - on what, by whom, for what return?

'If you think you are too small to make an impact, try going to bed with a mosquito in the room.'  Anita Roddick's turn of phrase always made its own impact! 

Firm Eliters met on 27th May to look at the issue of social return on investment vs financial return on investment.  With discussion leaders Jer O'Mahony encouraging debate on the value of philanthropy, investments in social enterprises and 'worthy' corporates, and Mark Campanale stimulating thought on the value of a Social Stock Exchange it turned into one of the more heated, and therefore more thought provoking, of our dinners.  It was also a dinner which started off covering one issue and which, as usual, broadened into areas of interconnectivity and thought development which the average lecture, seminar or book simply cannot achieve.

Discussion spanned corporate responsibility, corporate social responsibility, ethics, morality, financial rates of return, market behaviour,  measuring financial and social impact, the cost of raising capital, the changing nature of consumer behavour and expectations, economic trends, governance, impact on professional services providers and investors in new and existing markets - and that was just the beginning!

The world is changing - it always has - but the pace of that change, the way it is changing and the opportunities for organisations and individuals to harness that are vast.  Economic change, social change, environmental change, political change, technological change. This dinner simply gave guests a tiny flavour of what the opportunities arising out of those changes might be and the outcomes that might result. 

There is innovative thinking at the forefront of the debate about what organisations and individuals are here to achieve - and what financial and social benefits they can contribute to society and also gain for themselves.  

Those who are not reading, listening and learning about these new discussions and ideas will miss out on themselves developing the new ways of not just existing and surviving but also thriving today and tomorrow. And those who do not see others harnessing change are unlikely to harness it themselves. Luckily Firm Eliters are not the kind of individual to keep their ears and eyes closed to new developments; nor do they sit in their sector silos as many do.

Ideas were exchanged, challenges outlined and investigated, questions asked (many were unanswered - which is how it should be) and, as one guest said, 'We should each be further down the road of understanding this in a year's time; what do we need to do?'.  As always, a dinner leaves guests with questions to answer, new thinking to be done and new actions to take.

This issue of social return on investment versus financial return, and the whole issue of social impact being achieved by both profit and not for profit organisations is, in my opinion, one of the most important issues facing professional advisers, investors, corporates, individuals, not for profits etc.  To that end our discussions will continue with further dinners and events for firm Eliters around this area.  Our LinkedIn site will enable further debate to be shared.

Hosted by Richard McKelvey from ACEVO and Sara Dixon from Firm Beliefs, we welcomed back to dinner: Jer O'Mahony from Killik Asset Management;  Simon Card OBE; Deborah Jeff of Seddons; Chrissie Smith, Philip Henson from Bargate Murray and Nita Uphadye from Hodkinson Law Group.  We welcomed to their first dinner: Mark Campanale from the Social Stock Exchange; David Goepel from Edwin Coe; Stefanie Shedd from the Solution Shedd; Luke Williams from Ineum Consulting and Richard Houston from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Details of May Firm Elite dinner released

We have sent invitations to Firm Eliters regarding the dinner on 27th May.  Our conversation leaders will be:

Mark Campanale, who specializes in the finance of social businesses; clean tech companies, sustainable asset management and ecosystems services, principally forests.  Having trained as a development economist, Mark worked overseas, primarily in Africa before entering investment management just over twenty years ago. Recruited as one of the Europe's first specialist, sustainable investment analysts in 1989, Mark is a co-founder of the sustainable investment businesses firstly at Jupiter Asset Management with the Ecology Funds (1989-1994); NPI with Global Care Funds (1994-1999); AMP Capital with the Sustainable Future Funds (1999-2001) and Henderson Global Investors with the Industries of the Future Fund (1999-2006).  Mark works as an Advisor to Halloran Philanthropies and is a project manager for the Social Stock Exchange project, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, with the support of Halloran.

and

Jer O'Mahony who works with Killik Asset Management, providing investment management advice to charities, private clients and trusts. He has also been instrumental in developing and broadening the investment services of Killik Asset Management within the offshore investment world.
Prior to joining Killik, Jer held senior roles within AIB Bank, both in Private Banking (Ireland 1998-2003) and Corporate Banking in London (2003-2008), where his experience and expertise spanned the field of M&A, treasury management and financial advice to senior executives. Jer also worked closely with the AIB Bank Not for Profit team during his time with the bank in London. Jer works as an advisor and fund-raiser to a number of charities in London. The causes which he supports include:  homelessness, outreach projects for the elderly, people trafficking and medical related causes.

Further details can be found here.

IBA Women Lawyers' Conference? Oh dear... and yet somehow Oh great.

Women only conferences? I usually loathe them, dear Reader, as many of you know. Weak handshakes, lots of talk about shopping, and usually angst ridden wailing about the awfulness of men who won't promote us... Harsh? Maybe. My experience of them? Yes.  And in some ways this met my expectations.

It was an international bar association (women's group) conference (4th World Women Lawyers Conference) at the Grand Connaught Rooms in London, so the audience for the sessions was broad, varied in experience and in cultural approach to some of the techniques and topics listed as being discussed in sessions. 

Many of us I know were ready to walk out after the first few minutes of the first session - rainmaking. Why have lawyers sitting behind a panel on a platform talking amongst themselves, occasionally taking on board views from the audience, if the whole session is about communicating and establishing relationships?  A bit of an injection of energy from the non-lawyer in the room who was giving a few tips about networking. But other than that, pretty awful for some of us to experience.  But, for others, it was very useful - some international delegates had never been allowed to 'network' with business cards etc. The problem of trying to address the need to develop relationships when the audience is broad and varied I guess... But experiences were shared and connections (in adversity as audience members!) were made. So in that sense the International Bar Association achieved its brief.

Which takes me to the other session which had some of us tearing our hair out.  Law firm management.  Take a profession which does not teach itself at any stage about management techniques, promotes its technically skilled lawyers not just to ownership positions but also to management positions, is only just beginning to see the value in professional managers (for the most part), and then put members of that profession in a room to listen to...yes, other lawyers about how to do it well! Enough said I think.  Whilst how the panel members addressed the issues was interesting (some well, others shockingly amateurishly), the discussion really brought out the diversity in approach to being a lawyer, becoming a business owner, relating to male counterparts and, in many countries, the barriers quite clearly put in the way by male members of the profession. The elephant in the room - clients of law firms are driving the rates of pay for services, the method of delivery and want consistency across the globe from their service providers, be they lawyers, accountants etc.  If a corporate client benefits from ABS or MDP service in one country, why shouldn't they from all their legal providers, regardless of country.  No point worrying about how to develop staff if in fact clients' demands drive some of the profession out of business.  But, as with the rainmaking session, some really interesting experiences were exchanged.

So if we went there wanting to learn anything new about the techniques that businesses use to harness the future opportunities, well, not really a great conference. If we went there to learn from other people about their hopes, dreams, worries about being a lawyer, then the brief was met. And there was a man there - Ronnie Fox of Fox lawyers.  Who managed well the entire experience. And wore a quite superb tie.  And I wanted to ask why we had to have the entire, in some cases really lengthy, CVs of panel members read out when they were available on CD rom in our packs?  Some took minutes to read out!

The human trafficking session was excellent by the way. Superb speakers. Now in that session I learnt new techniques and concepts.  And sadly far too much about how the world is for those who are trafficked. Some really great stuff being done by some excellent lawyers. Well done Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE (of Dawson Cornwell, UK), Puan Sri Datin Seri N Saraswathy Devi  of Kuala Lumpur, Carol Ndaguba of Nigeria and Robin Hassler Thompson of Florida. They really showed what lawyers can do - in business and with passion for making a difference - whether man or woman.

I met some great lawyers, who just happened to be women.  Would I have met them had I not gone?  No.  So although there were a few downsides, dear Reader, all in all it was worth it. Women only or not.