A quick scan of some of the best leads me to the view that a weekly blog could serve our clients well -it would enable us to bring to their attention developments in the 'outside world', developments in our own services and would foster closer relationships with them so that we can better serve them. A few 'phone calls later and we have signed up a number of contacts and clients to be guest bloggers - so that our own musings do not become the only ones... Watch this blogging space!

For some interesting corporate style blogs, try: www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors http://www.seeingthepossibilities.com/ http://direct2dell.com/one2one/default.aspx

Dan runs marathons to raise money for the Army Benevolent Fund.

A feature of this website will be to raise awareness of various charities and fund-raising activities in which our clients are involved. Dan's chosen charity is therefore our Charity of the Month for April - our first charity after the launch of our new website.

To find out more about Dan, and the charity, click on http://www.justgiving.com/danwhiter We shall be keeping in touch with Dan and we hope you do too. If you have any questions for Dan, or wish to make a donation, please contact him direct but do let us know that our site has made a little difference to the charity's income.

TocH is one of those charities that we have probably heard of but are not sure what it does. (TocH will later be one of our charities of the month). It gives us a good feeling but we are not sure why. A bit like the numerous car adverts which we love - but the name of the car?

Amongst some members of my old profession (lawyers) there is little understanding of the concept. Amongst others, there is a great deal of understanding. You just have to look at the number of law firms in the various lists of top 100 organisations whose brand is known to the public - and at the bottom-line effectiveness of the brand. The same can be said for accountants, surveyors, manufacturers, services organisations and charities. Why is it so difficult for some organisations to see the value in investing in what makes them different/significant/special - in other words, in what can ensure that they remain competitive? The issue of branding of organisations is one with which Branko in particular helps a number of clients.

And the same goes for individuals - why do we spend so little attention to our personal brand? This is something on which we shall be working with our Firm Elite members at one of the forthcoming seminars this year.

Our guests were wide-ranging: lawyers, marketing professionals, and we even allowed somebody 'involved in finances' (that would be me!). Between us we had worked in small and large firms, professional practices and corporations, and had been involved within a range of industries - from professional services, to charities, software companies, utility organisations... With Branko and Kehrela there, we even had a global turn to the discussions.

What became clear was that we all enjoyed the company, opinions and guidance of those we did not normally work with. In an age where people tend no longer to feel loyalty or long-term obligation to employers, the need to feel part of a 'band of brothers' remains. Furthermore, regardless of professional background, the business issues remain the same. Too often, we tend to work with, take opinions from, and surround ourselves with others who are like we are. What a wasted opportunity to find out how others deal with the business world.

Our thanks to the two Johns, Kehrela, Debbie, Andrew and Marcus.

Having bored people rigid with the build up to my trip on the Orient Express (2 nights Venice, 1 night back to London on the train itself), I thought I would report on the experience.

The administration arrangements were worrying. Slow to respond, incorrect details on the gift voucher/tickets, forgetting to invoice for the final amount. The other-side-of-the-channel train itself was immaculate, the staff were highly professional and seemed to take pride in delivering what was an excellent service, the food was superb. The crockery - not what I would expect (reasonable china but not the best - although the way the train rocked at stages, probably just as well...). Yet up until Calais, I was not disappointed and I felt that the brand lived up to its name.

At Calais. we had to disembark (the train has a kitchen on it and apparently cannot therefore go under the tunnel), board a coach (a luxury one) and under the tunnel we went.

At Folkestone we were greated by a superb jazz band and boarded the British Pullman (also part of the Orient Express brand). The carriages needed a good clean. The waiters in our carriage varied in attitude and ability and seemed not to take pride in delivering a service. The food, again, was superb and the decor, although a tad dirty, was impressive.

So - one brand, delivering differing experiences at different stages of the journey. I had been looking forward to the experience of an age-old form of travel, in historic carriages, with beautiful marquetry, and stunning scenery. This, to me, was the brand. So the experience delivered on it. However, had the brand only meant excellent administration, consistent experience across Europe regardless of train AND superb crockery... I might have been sadly disappointed.

What does your brand mean to you? And to your client? And if different clients have different, and possibly conflicting, expectations of your brand, why is that? What if the journey for your client is inconsistent? What do you do about it?

That’s not to say that I spend my whole life running (though sometimes it feels like it), but in a way, that is the easiest way to describe myself. Five years ago I would have said “I am in the Army”. Twelve years ago I would have said “I am a student” and fourteen years ago I would have said “I am a rider”. Everything changes, and devil take the hindmost. I have been in the Army for a little over 11 years now, and am due to retire in 2011. Retiring means getting a real job, and having real responsibilities and a complete change in the way I live my life and do my business. To that end, I have had to re-think what I want out of my current life – and having seen far too many of those “Things to do before you die”, I began looking around for a real challenge. Added to that, the only thing I have ever been (or at least have thought myself to be) good at is physical stuff. So it had to be something physical. It was a fairly short leap from those two concepts, with the fact that I enjoy traveling, to find a physical challenge somewhere I had never been to. When I was flying out to Toronto for the marathon in September last year, my two like-minded mates and I started discussing what we could do. One option was the Polar Race – a 350 mile race to the North Pole, in teams of three, dragging a 100lb pulk. You pay £19,000 up front and the organisers get everything you need, right down to the shotgun to scare off the polar bears.

Now, as 90% of you will agree, £19,000 is generally not something that you find down the back of the sofa (the other 10% of you can log onto www.justgiving.com/danwhiter and hand it over). Even so, we actually got to the point of arguing about which of the three of us would get to carry the shotgun. Once we finished the marathon, I was surprised about how I felt. Everyone tells you that the elation is amazing and despite the pain (and there was plenty of that), you want to sign up straight away for the next one. In the last 2 or 3 miles, I was surprised by the emotions I was experiencing - running through one of the cheering stations, someone shouted out “Come on, Dan!” and I felt tearful. Two minutes later, I ran past a police car, parked sideways to control the traffic. Next to the car stood a policewoman, complete with cap and gun on her hip. I was within a whisker of slowing to make a date with her for that evening – something I would never even consider. Strangely, the mood swings were slightly scary but exhilarating. Then at the end of the race, I didn’t feel the elation everyone seemed to suggest I would. I just felt that I had worked hard, got a reasonable time and was glad it was over. In the next couple of months I looked around for something to do, and the Racing the Planet series caught my eye, including the blog of a guy called Will Laughlin. Will had also thought about this and his reasoning was as follows “ After hours and hours of sustained physical discomfort and exhaustion, the state of a runner’s mind can begin to shift and slip. Especially when racing, many ultra runners experience visual and auditory hallucinations, and/or exaggerated mood states”. This is what I had felt, although at a much lower level, in the marathon. And I wanted to feel it again. This encouraged me to write about what I was doing and how I felt about everything. I suppose what I really wanted was some online therapy – a way of dumping all my concerns and worries onto a computer screen, allowing me to read it back and actually do something about whatever it was I felt unhappy about. Of course, it also satisfied that closet egotist in me. If you want to feed my ego, please read it at www.4deserts.com/blogs/ and look under Top Blogs, or click on the Gobi March tab. Luckily, being in the Army means that there is a lot of support for ventures like this. My current job is in the Army Medical Directorate in Camberley, Surrey and as a staff job, the hours are pretty much what I make them, within reason. Once I had decided to do it and signed up, I thought that there is no reason not to raise money at the same time. I cannot claim to be doing this all for charity – I chose to do it for myself, and raise money at the same time. The automatic choice was the Army Benevolent Fund. Many of my friends have raised money for them, and in my eyes, there is certain sense of parity in a fund that helps those who gave their lives to something higher than themselves. I am a great believer in the social contract, and when I joined the Army, I was content that I had given up some rights and placed myself in a position where I had to behave in a certain way. On leaving the Army, through injury or age, the ABF is there to compensate for those privations and demands. The wives and families of serving personnel deserve the recognition for having put up with the times their relatives could not come home for Christmas, or be there for the birth of their child. Anyway, here I am within 6 weeks of flying to China, wildly swinging between outrageous confidence and utter despair. So far, the most I have done is a marathon on the South Downs Way with about 15lbs on my back. Is this enough? I know I am going to have to really step things up for the next 3 weeks or so, before tapering off. But every time I get a twinge in my knee, or I finish a run feeling tired, I wonder if I can really stand up to a marathon a day for six days. But what is it that will actually see me through? What do I have that others do not? The answer, I think (to the second question) is actually, not a lot. I do not physically have anything that puts me ‘above’ anyone else. All I have is what is in my head. In my case, I see this more as stubbornness than anything else. In my time, I have never collapsed, fainted, vomited, developed disabling injuries or anything else during hard exercise. But others have. You could say it was pride in doing what others are doing but without stopping. Possibly it is masochistic – trying to get to that point of collapse, to show that I really am trying as hard as I can, to see exactly how far I can go before my body really does throw the towel in. I suspect the truth is something less exciting. As a teenager, I was very self-conscious, and hated myself for it. The only times I felt truly confident was sat on a horse, playing squash or out running. It was my escape from a lifetime of introversion (which is ironic considering these are individual sports). I ran, swam, rode, fenced, skydived, scuba-dived, bungee-jumped and rugby tackled my way out into a more confident place, where I was an equal, and every once in a while, was something more than equal. I remember looking at myself in the bathroom mirror when I was about 16, and thinking “I do not like feeling like this. I am not going to feel like this anymore”. In a slightly primeval way, the stronger and fitter I get, the more confident I feel. If I lose fitness, if I feel flabby and soggy, my self esteem suffers, and I tend to become more introverted. The other reason I do this, is because it is a damn sight easier than a lot of things. Running a business, driving a company forward, instigating wholesale change, emigrating to America with £200 in my pocket to start a new life with – those are the really challenging things that take motivation, vision, perseverance, mental agility and long hard work. 7 days in the desert is a walk in the park compared to the 5 years it can take to establish a company. In the desert, I don’t care who overtakes me. If someone overtakes you in the marketplace, you need to make damn sure you either catch them up, or that you are in a different market. Those are the things that scare me, that intimidate me. This is something I can do, and do well. I know that I will never break a world record or make a million, but this is something I can do. The problem now is that can I ever be satisfied? Every time I do something, there is something harder, longer or tougher waiting for me to do. Can I ever be satisfied that I have done as much as I need to justify myself, or am I doomed to run in ever increasing circles, seeking that next challenge that could, finally, make me content with where I am, and possibly more importantly, who I am.

Just over a year ago, I decided it was time for a change in direction and was offered the position of marketing and communications manager for national charity Toc H. Not only was this my first encounter with the Third Sector – but incredibly it was also Toc H’s first real encounter with an in-house marketing professional.

The charity, which was established in the First World War, had a Christian ethos: To Love Widely, To Build Bravely, To Think Fairly and To Witness Humbly. Unfortunately, the reality of this was to do lots of great work in communities, but not tell anyone about it. While biblically this is the correct way to deliver Christian values, in this day and age with numerous charities all vying for the same pot of money, it certainly doesn’t help with fundraising!

To be honest, my very first obstacle was trying to understand what Toc H was all about and identify what its main aims and objectives were. The charity seems to have its fingers in so many pots – working in communities delivering training, social activities to the isolated and elderly, language classes to ethnic minority groups, family support, youth training and mentoring, community cohesion campaigns. It operates several nurseries, is actively supporting three new academies and even owns several residential properties which are used by groups for holidays and activity breaks. I’m sure there are even more projects that I’ve forgotten to mention – so you can see why identifying our mission was such a challenge.

Also, the overall objective of Toc H’s marketing strategy, other than raising profile and awareness, is primarily fundraising, something that until now I had very little experience of. Yes I have sales experience, but the products I had previously promoted were tangible – my customer could see what they were getting for their money. With Toc H, I am trying to sell a concept and my customer doesn’t even get anything in return for his money, apart of course from an inner glow from having helped someone less fortunate than himself.

To sum up Toc H’s objective, I finally identified its all-round aim to eliminate social exclusion whether that is young people, the elderly, because of culture, religion or race. Toc H promotes friendship and equality and works to bring community cohesion. Actually talking to the people who benefit from Toc H’s work was the biggest eye opener of all. We really are making a huge difference to people’s lives and giving them fresh hope for a better future. Young people who have spent their lives in local authority care and have never had the loving guidance of a mother or a father. Many expelled from school, no education or training, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and generally living life on a downward spiral. Toc H has given numerous young people like this, who society looks upon as a lost cause, a second chance. Offering one-to-one mentoring and alternative education programmes. Visit: http://www.tochparticipation.co.uk/youth-initiatives/case-study-1---horizons-youth-mentoring.htm to read Jonathan’s story.

I listened to a mother whose son has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Her family were isolated and couldn’t socialise or go out and enjoy normal family activities because of her child’s anti-social behaviour. She explained how Toc H has made life bearable by offering support and a social network for her family. Visit: http://www.tochparticipation.co.uk/adhd-support/what-is-adhd.htm

A simple Tea and Cake campaign saw communities which were segregated by religious and cultural differences and lack of understanding of each other brought together and offering friendship to each other. Visit http://www.tochparticipation.co.uk/be-inspired/tea-and-cake-campaign.htm

In actual fact, the work that Toc H does simply markets itself. You couldn’t read some of the stories on our website, without being moved.

So my job is really all about communication – telling the World about this wonderful organisation and how it has touched so many lives.

Do visit Toc H’s website at www.toch.org.uk and dig deep into its content to read stories and case studies. There are also volunteering opportunities and news about work all over the UK. Feel free to leave your feedback on our forum – and of course all donations, however small are always greatly appreciated.

Christine Scippo
Marketing Manager TocH

But please do more than just go to.... Please donate and show these guys your support.

As usual, dinner on Thursday February 21^st involved a number of professionals (ranging from law, to risk management, to charities, to asset management) sitting down together to discuss issues of the day. We were enthused by the presence of Kehrela Hodkinson who started the discussion on culture by regaling us with her experiences of being a US lawyer, practising in the UK. Those around the table chipped in with their experiences – South Africa, various states in the US, the Middle East... What came across was the excitement and benefit gained from doing business with those whose background and expectations and method of conducting themselves differs from our own. Experiences, and tips, were shared. Questions were asked. Conclusions were drawn. For more on Kehrela’s talk about culture, go to: http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/resources.php

Conversation, as usual, further developed and we found ourselves discussing how as business people we provided value to clients and customers. Then we compared that with how we charged for our services or products... There is a disconnection in many ways between the value that we add and how we connect the fee for our services to that value. So, typical example, we charge for a document, which we say takes one hour, so we charge for that time. The reality is that that ‘document’ is simply a record of or a controlling mechanism for an idea or a solution to a problem which is worth far more than ‘simply’ one hour of time. Why does a lawyer charge for a will, based on x minutes of time, or who describes it as ‘a document called a will’ when in reality the lawyer may well have created a mechanism by which the client is saved thousands of pounds worth of tax and which that document merely puts into effect? The value added to the client is a potentially large saving, and yet lawyers still use terminology by which they charge a client for a ‘document’. The client thinks they are just paying for a document; hence the intake of breath when a fee is charged at a certain amount. In reality, the client is being charged for a saving of tax/cash outflow at a future point in time. Why not phrase it with the client in that way from the beginning?

The reality is that many businesses still do not understand what value they add to a client’s business or particular need. If we do not understand how we add value to a situation, how can we expect the client to? If we do understand how, we need to start using terminology with clients and customers which enhances their understanding of what we are doing and which prepares them for the fact that they will need to pay for that added value.

The example of the nail and the hammer and the plank of wood may illustrate this further. When buying a hammer and a nail and a plank of wood, are you paying for three objects? Or are you paying for the means by which you can display and keep your limited editions of Charles Dickens’ works? Which would you pay more for – 3 objects or keeping safe possessions which mean something to you or which are worth a significant sum of money?

Now look at what you provide for others via your business. What are you adding to their lives or businesses? Do you charge for that?

Once again, dinner with Firm Elite leads to changes in how we conduct business...

In Jersey, there is little in terms of the competition that is not known to those in the same business – it is a small island, there are common social networks and there is much movement of personnel between organisations. This means that for those businesses who move to Jersey (or other such geographically or industry limited places), the attitude towards informal sharing of business knowledge is often unexpected.

In Copenhagen, the importance of politeness at all times, of taking time to come to conclusions regarding strategic investments etc, of not socialising with colleagues outside of work time – all these play a role in the relationship between those who are used to that environment and those who are not.

Don’t be unprepared for doing business with other cultures. Whilst certain parts of business life make us realise that the world is a small place with many similarities, be prepared for the differences as well.

'Mr K'

Madrid 2007

Take a look at how you attract staff. Most of us look at websites when considering a new job. Does yours concentrate on what technical services you provide (which may attract professionals but not necessarily clients) or on what market sectors you serve (which may attract clients but perhaps not always professionals). So does your site attract both clients and potential staff? Does it show potential staff what it is like to work there, does it give a glimpse of your firm's values, does it show potential staff what other staff think of working there?

How do you treat your staff? In your market place for staff (which may be different to that for attracting clients), is your firm known as a good employer, a firm that manages and develops people well, that invests in staff development, in their welfare and in their good will? What would the local lawyers say about your firm? What would young solicitors say about your firm? What would lawyers serving the same client market as yours say about your firm? Most importantly, what do you own staff say about you? And where are they saying it? In your
community? On web chat pages? On websites? At functions? At client events? Is what they are saying good?

Set about getting, and keeping, staff just as you do clients. The world of legal practice is getting smaller. So therefore is your pool of talent. In a small world, your reputation as a good employer is key to attracting much needed talent.

So why am I not satisfied? I came 45^th out of 157 (182 started the race). My final time was 34 hours quicker than the slowest man, but 13 hours slower than the fastest. I have infected blisters, tendonitis in my right foot, torn muscles across my shoulders, my hips feel like they are being crushed in a vice and I have lost 11lbs in bodyweight. But I am alive and I can walk.

I had three aims in running this race. The first was to finish, the second to keep my feet in decent condition and the third to finish as high up the rankings as possible. In my opinion, I only achieved the first of these. If I had done the second I may have been able to manage the third. But it would be all too easy for me to shrug off responsibility for not hitting these second two targets and to say my body had let me down. Nine years ago, I was in Brunei for two months. In this time, I got immersion foot, or trenchfoot. During extended periods of immersion, the feet swell up and the skin softens. If you walk on them while they are wet and swollen, the skin will blister and rip quickly. As they dry, layers separate, again causing blistering. As with cold injuries, once you have had it, you are always susceptible. Each subsequent time, damage happens more quickly and more intensely. If I had thought this through, I would have been able to take a little more care with my feet and prevent some of the damage. As it was, by the end of Stage 3 (which involved several river crossings) my feet were not in a good way. Will Laughlin (who, by complete chance, I shared a tent with), described my feet to a reporter as “covered, barely, in a hanging sheath of skin that looked like a loose sock”. I spent the second half of Stage 3 (about 4 hours), and first half of Stage 4 (about 3 hours) in some discomfort, unsure of whether I would finish. This was, without doubt, my lowest ebb. I felt physically sick before the start of Stage 4. Initially I was worried I was reacting badly to the freeze dried food, but then realised I was scared. I admitted this to a friend. He couldn’t understand this at all. Where I do things to bolster my confidence, he does them because (I think) he is confident.

Personally, I was scared of not finishing, scared of looking pathetic, scared of not being capable. Scared of losing status. Because that is what this was all about; my status in my own eyes and my perceived status in the eyes of others. During these lowest hours, I ran on my own – physically and mentally. My world shrank to a 3 metre bubble, creeping along the valleys and villages of north-west China. In my bubble was me, my blisters and my doubts. In a strange way the doubts became comforting – much like the irritating habit of a friend can become endearing after a long time. The trick was never to answer the questions my head was asking. Could I finish? Would people laugh if I didn’t finish? What would they think of me? What if I don’t succeed? The questions became a looped tape that didn’t need an answer because I knew I would have to answer the same question a thousand times again. I retreated within myself and stayed there – letting my body plod along until I was forced to emerge for a checkpoint, or to make a decision (where to cross the river, better to walk along the smoother path in the open or on rougher shaded ground?).

The route was marked with pink flags every 30 metres or so and for a long time I just existed from flag to flag. Checkpoints were 10 kilometres apart, but this was an unimaginable distance. I reached a checkpoint on Stage 4, and the crew told me I was the fiftieth person they had seen that day. Suddenly everything changed. I had subconsciously set myself a target to come within the top third of finishers (the Army having a thing for placing people in thirds according to their ability), and suddenly realised that this was possible. My mood changed radically in the space of a minute, and instead of walking within myself I began to look up and move forward. I set my sights on the person ahead of me and aimed to catch them or stay with them. Having caught and overtaken four or five people, I took strength and began an upward spiral. I was covering the ground well at this point. After about two hours of this, I came to the next checkpoint – an open sided tent in a scorching river valley. The staff there cheerfully told me it was just 8 kilometres to the campsite for the night. I looked up from filling my water bottles – “To the next checkpoint, then 10 k to the finish” I corrected her. “No” she said, “To the finish”. I had miscounted my checkpoints – it was 8, not 18 kilometres to the campsite. I could feel my strength growing; my chances of finishing improving. It felt like my numbers had come up on the lottery, and the girl behind the counter was telling me, again and again, that I really did have all six numbers! I dared to hope, and asked again. And again she told me it was just 8 kilometres away. I set off and set myself to catch as many more as I could. In the next 60 minutes, I caught three people, and got into a running battle with a guy from Wales. I overtook him, he overtook me. We paced each other for about 3 kilometres, before he moved ahead by about 20 metres. He walked around a corner of the valley and I heard him say “At last!”. As I rounded the bend, I saw the line and smiled. He started to jog, and predictably, I did too. I came up to his shoulder and he sped up to a run. So I sprinted – after 150 kilometres, or 94 miles, I managed a sprint. W crossed the line together.

Whether it was the adrenaline from sprinting or the endorphins from the pain, I don’t know, but I rode that high for the next two hours. And I knew then that I was going to finish. Stage 5 was 80 kilometres, 50 miles, and was no picnic. I started high, and by this time knew that when you are high you have to get every last drop out of yourself before you fall. I didn’t hit the wall until 40 kilometres, and I was lucky to have only 10 kilometres of hard work (although it felt like 30). At the 50 kilometre checkpoint, there was an Italian guy, Giovanni Simonetti, who had been consistently beating me on every stage. I came into the checkpoint after him, and left before him – which again was a pivotal moment for my mood (it was becoming increasingly easy for the smallest thing to induce the biggest changes). We left the checkpoint and climbed onto the plateau that covers a large chunk of North-West China. The view was spectacular, but it was like standing on a baking tray. I set a hard pace, and soon could see the guy in front of me. All I could see was a dark dot. After a while, I could make out his shape, and that of another guy ahead of him. As time went on I could make out more and more detail, so I knew I was closing, and this spurred me on. Just before the next checkpoint, I caught and passed them both. But I didn’t finish that day until 1.07 am – falling down a rocky gully in the pitch black, with feet that I was scared to look at.

It had taken me 14 hours and 5 minutes and I was very, very tired. But it didn’t matter – because I remembered the feeling from the end of the previous day. Come hell or high water, I was going to finish.

And I did. In 42 hours, 27 minutes and 53 seconds. But I will always doubt myself. And what is success if we didn’t have any doubts? For me, success is all about doing something that you are not confident about. If you are confident, then there would be no challenge and no success. If you’re not scared, how can you be brave? But to conquer your doubts and triumph over them? Maybe I was successful, but I still have my doubts.

I imagine there are a fair number of senior lawyers out there who secretly sympathise with this sentiment. Like others in all walks of business, they might feel articles and interviews on their activities can only be looking for trouble – unnecessary to invite and potentially perilous. In a worst-case scenario they may be paving the way for PR disasters or negative publicity; if not, they are wary of giving people any undesirable insight into their strategic thinking.

Such an impression would not really be that surprising. The modern media – that “feral beast” with a thirst for blood as Tony Blair described it – has taken quite a bashing of late. Whether or not the hostility is justified is open to debate, but some of the tension is probably inevitable. Politicians, in particular, have engaged journalists in an ongoing war of words in recent years – revenge perhaps for the relentless use of terms such as ‘spin doctor’ in political coverage. Interestingly, online encyclopaedia Wikipedia makes the point that calling a PR professional a spin doctor is, after all, effectively the derogatory equivalent of calling a journalist a ‘hack’.

I have now been editor of Managing Partner for almost a year, and while the law firm/press relationship is hardly as stormy as that between the government and the nationals, many people at least appear apprehensive of talking too much. Not long after I started one very senior figure of a prominent firm I approached specifically told me – albeit somewhat apologetically – that firm always tried to minimise any comment in the press.

Of course, lawyers will always be naturally cautious too – risk-avoidance being a basic part of the job. Sensibly, they like to be ultra-prepared for interviews – almost more as though they were being questioned in a legal scenario than what we like to construct more as a conversation. Putting people at their ease – friendly rather than forceful – encourages them to be more open, but lawyers are perhaps a shrewder group than most.

Again, however, any suspicion is perhaps not surprising given what they do for a living. An awareness of all the possible implications of something said or written is the very essence of the work. Even so, I was a little amused when talking to one managing partner about their firm’s flexible-working policy and preparedness for the age-discrimination legislation now in effect. Impressed with what I was told and given its own employment-law expertise, I suggested the firm felt it had a ‘handle’ on the subject. I was told they would not want to come across as complacent.

Nevertheless, compared to other business areas I have covered as a journalist, lawyers do like to write, and they are also usually quite good at it – even if their prose could do with some pruning at times. A few years ago I spent two years on some magazines in the international oil and gas industry, where persuading people to write was much more difficult. Then, when they did commit, deciphering the engineer-speak – not to mention the finer points of welding and corrosion when English was sometimes not the first language – was an ongoing (and I have to admit, occasionally irritating) challenge. As for Managing Partner, I write myself of course – interviews and subject overviews – and we also have a pool of freelance journalists to draw on. But having many willing contributors is useful when it comes to commissioning case studies and columns, which is the basic format of the magazine.

Managing Partner is certainly the strongest title I have been involved in to date in my career. It is also an exciting time to be leading it. Its success is thanks to the strength of the editorial board (all drawn from the profession) and the growing number of practitioners who are not afraid to share their thoughts with peers and engage in sensible, non-sensational debate about where the profession is headed and the challenges in store.

To end with another quote, award-winning US playwright, the late great Arthur Miller, said: “A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” Replace ‘nation’ with ‘profession’, and I think you have a good sound byte for what Managing Partner is trying to do as a magazine.

Richard Brent

http://www.mpmagazine.com/

There are certain rules of the American business game: make as much money as you can as quickly as you can. This game theory comes from the economics of abundance rather than economics of scarcity and invasions so well known in Asia and Europe. Imagine my chagrin, when arriving in the UK in 1993 10 days before Christmas, when all of the shelves were empty. I couldn’t understand the fact that there was no more merchandise in the back room. When the supplies ran out, they were out for good. It did prove rather difficult to explain to my then very young daughters how Santa went to the shop to buy them presents, but the shops had already sold out of toys...

In American business culture, doing the deal is more important than building relationships and getting to know the other parties to the deal. Americans may neglect to offer coffee/tea at the beginning of a meeting since the deal is foremost in their minds. Small talk is saved for the end of negotiations.

Because the number of weeks for annual leave in the US is low relative to other countries, true insights, empathy and understanding of other national and business cultures is weak.

Despite the insularity of Americans in business, their openness, informality, optimism and friendliness instantly puts people at ease.

There are certain foundations of American culture which, when understood, lead to more successful business dealings:

• Americans are obsessed with time. The world’s cultures are divided into two distinct approaches to understanding and using time. Monochronic cultures emphasize tasks and schedules. Time is a tangible thing. It can be spent, wasted and lost. Time is linear. Tasks take precedence over people. Interruptions are not welcome. In Polychronic cultures, relationships outweigh rules of the clock. Time is bountiful and ongoing, flowing, a river. People come before the task. Interruptions are acceptable. Americans are probably best known for their focus on time, schedules and deadlines. The clock is the master. Keeping to schedule is critical. Relationships will wait. Americans focus on the future. Things can be changed for the better. A deadline or due date is more than a goal. It is a promise which must be kept. Punctuality is crucial. Meetings must start on time. Americans want everything instantly.

• American culture is, above all, individualistic. Americans separate themselves from the group, while English value the eccentric within the group.

• No age limits “down-aging”. A person is never too old to start something new. Mature students are the norm in universities in America.

• American business culture puts a premium on confidence, leadership and self-assertiveness. British business culture puts a premium on “towing the line”, “not making waves”, and following tradition.

• Informality. Nike’s “Just do it” reflects the American concept of equality. The founding fathers eliminated many traditional, formal rules that were reminders of royalty, courts and the rigid class system they left behind. Not only was informality symbolic of that basic American idea-equality, but it also served as a way to blend a population with a variety of backgrounds.

• Americans emphasize schedules, time and tasks rather than people. Their relationships are transitory, connected to projects or places. They are less likely to take time for spontaneous conversation, thereby missing opportunities for information. British culture puts more emphasis on relationships and a sense that time flows endlessly so there is time for those extra minutes of conversation that can offer information.

Kehrela Hodkinson (Guest Blogger).

For more on Kehrela’s views, plus insight into the historical, geographical and social aspects of the US which lead to how they do business, please go to: http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/resources.php

Some would say it is to do with the ownership structure of those firms. Personal liability makes an individual avoid risk where possible. And if a business owner is not in control of a part of that business, how can the risk be avoided? There are many professional managers in LLPs who face political/ownership issues as well, however, where personal liability is less of an issue - so can fear of risk be the real reason?

Others would say that lawyers' lack of business acumen and experience means that they do not recognise the benefits which professional managers can bring. They do not understand, and therefore do not trust them, to manage that risk, rather than avoid it.

Others say that lawyers choose to employ strategic level managers yet expect them to limit their actions to operational level issues - or vice versa.

Our latest newsletter highlights the frustration of some professional managers who work in law firms.

There is another reason for professional managers often feeling unloved and unwanted - and, for once, we cannot blame the lawyers for that! Good managers understand the implications and impact of other management areas on their own field. Yet frequently in practice, Firm Beliefs comes across HR professionals who do not know how to calculate the return on an investment in expenditure on training, finance professionals who do not understand the role that IT can play in providing good management information systems, IT professionals who do not understand how to design a 'what if' scenario for an HR succession planning programme, or marketing professionals who do not understand the value that a performance management programme can have on achieving better cross-selling throughout a firm. So professional managers themselves, by not practising joined-up management, do not perform as well as they might, and this in turn contributes to the partners' lack of confidence in their ability to add value to the organisation.

Both lawyers and professional managers need to understand where their own strengths and weaknesses lie. They then need to work together to achieve closer working relationships which, ultimately, will lead to that relationship adding value to the firm as a whole. The business owners and the professional managers need to understand more about each other's world. A common language is needed.

Firm Beliefs runs a number of skills development programmes which, ultimately, enable both lawyers and professional managers to enhance their management skills. These result in closer, and more effective, working relationships because there is then a shared understanding of business and management, a common language and greater trust between lawyer and manager. Click on our Professional Skills and Firm Elite pages.

But we pointed out to them that that was not the first key question: the first key question is ‘where are we going?’. In other words, it matters not how a firm is going to get somewhere unless it knows where it is going! The question they ought to have asked was ‘where is this firm going’ and only thereafter, ‘how are we going to get there’. The strategy is only the ‘how’; it needs a ‘where’ to work!

We frequently hear lawyers tell us, when instructing us to assist them in various ways, ‘this is our strategy’, but rarely do we hear ‘this is where we want to be and this is how we will get there’. Thus, their strategies are bound not to deliver, are bound to fail, because they are not connected to an aim, a purpose, a goal.

Too many firms get lost in measuring, analysing, implementing, aspects of their strategy (usually contained in a myriad of documents!), and they forget to go back to basics which is to remind themselves where they want to be and then to assess their strategy against that aim. We have come across large, respected, firms with ‘Strategic Group’; ‘Executive Committee’, ‘Strategy Team’ and yet when we ask them what their organisational objectives are, they are not sure. Their strategies appear to have taken on a life of their own!

The question for most firms at the moment ought not even to be ‘we want to be here’ – it ought to be ‘where do we need to be’ in order to enhance the potential of the firm – or even, sadly, still, in some cases to survive. For our profession, where do we need to be has not until recently been an issue – we have never really needed to be anywhere! For centuries, we have had clients who seek us out, we have had a monopoly on the work that we do, and the only place we needed to be was usually on the golf course or in roomier offices! Now, we have to create our markets, we compete for the provision of legal services and wherever we think we need to be, somebody else is likely to be there before us and be doing it more successfully than us!

It is only by constantly reviewing where we want to be, and adjusting where we need to be, that we keep focused on our objectives. They come first – then we can work out our way of getting there. So don’t look for a strategy first, look for the objectives.

Take this for an example: a very old organisation, which has allowed the changes in society and in the expectations of consumers and employees to pass it by, had an emergency retreat in order to deal with the major financial problems it faced. At that retreat, the business owners and key managers undertook to support all staff in their roles and in their efforts to turn the business around. In other words, they made staff a ‘promise’, at a key time in the organisation’s change process.

They later broke that promise. A member of staff asked for help and, because procedures had apparently not been followed, that request was ignored. This had an impact on other staff who, understandably, began to realise that they could not rely on the promises made by the business owners. Talented individuals realised that they too could be treated in the same manner.

In HR parlance, the ‘psychological contract’ had broken down – not just between one individual and the employer, but between a great many individuals and the employer. There are many definitions of the psychological contract: ‘the set of expectations held by the individual employee that specify what the individual and the organisation expect to give to and receive from each other in the course of their work relationship’ (Sims RR (1994) Human Resource Management) is an example. My favourite is ‘a part of the glue that binds employees to organisations’ (Guzzo R and Noonan K (1994) Human Resource Management).

So, beware what you promise. If you cannot keep to your promise, expect to lose staff. The legal employment contract may remain in existence, but the psychological one will not.

Firm Elite events are for those who are passionate about business – regardless of profession, skills, experience or role in the organisation – and that was certainly shown by all of those present (helped no doubt by the beverages...). Do you often go out for dinner and meet people who are just there because they feel they ought to be, and with whom discussion seems such a chore? Firm Elite events are not like that. Conversation is wide-ranging, full of humour, and never dull.

We had to operate a waiting list for this one and we will have to do the same for the ones next year. Click here for details of future events: http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/firmelite.php

A huge thank you to Richard Brent, editor of Managing Partner, for being our main guest and for so persuasively extolling the virtues of keeping up to speed with new thinking and new developments in our profession by reading Managing Partner. Richard has also been a guest-blogger on our site: http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/blog.php?id=17

Managing Partner can be viewed on-line if you are a subscriber on: www.mpmagazine.com.

I had put my name down to see whether the experience would be useful for Firm Elite clients. What I did not expect was that it would be hugely useful for me! From this I learn two things: (1) apparently I think I am immune from the need to keep my skills honed (2) I think only of clients, not of myself...

We are never immune from the need to improve our skills, regardless of how long we have been in business. Life changes, techniques change, the need to use different skills changes. Furthermore, in the service industry we can become so focused on the clients being the key to the future, that we forget that we need to be at our best if we are to serve them properly.

Along with others on the programme, I spent a day learning new skills/honing others, and I spent a day with other people looking at me, just me, for a few minutes and giving me supportive, valuable and effective feedback. It put me in mind of a number of people I know who are so driven to managing their clients and their people, that they forget about themselves as being in need on occasions – both of further development and of support.

The content of the day ought to remain a secret – you ought to experience it for yourselves to get maximum benefit. I can however, reveal that we ate in the actors’ canteen (fabulous!), that Helen and Richard are quite the best people I have ever come across for giving positive feedback and for getting nervous people to use new techniques. And I can confirm that not once were we asked to pretend to be trees (which is a shame as my willow imitation is second to none!). The other people who took part were wide ranging – different professions, different industries, different attitudes – but we all shared in a day of camaderie and mutual support that really made the new skills we learnt so easy to now implement ‘in the outside world’.

I am not easily impressed by ‘coaches’, voice trainers, image makers, presentation skills developers – yet I honestly cannot recommend enough that you spend a day in the hands of Richard and Helen, who very effectively made me aware of how I come across in different situations. More importantly, they enabled me to control the impression I make - to suit the situation. They enabled me to 'be myself, but just better'.

We are delighted to announce that we will be offering the programme for Firm Elite members and guests next year – date to be announced shortly. Click on:www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/firmelite.

The Soho House hotel was host to an evening dedicated to publicising and raising money for a medical charity called Merlin (www.merlin.org.uk ). Like most, it does what it does well, and quietly. Or should that be it does what it does well, BUT quietly. I confess that I had not heard of it before. I had heard of Medecins sans Frontieres, but never of Merlin. Merlin is different from Medecins, its strapline tells you how - ‘medical relief, lasting health care’. Its volunteers go into the areas of greatest need at crisis points, and then they stay. They stay long enough to establish systems and structures to ensure that health care is not short term. It aims to last into the future. The short film was harrowing, but uplifting because we could see how a difference can be made IF support is given.

The film which followed was a first ever showing. ‘French Film’ (http://www.frenchfilm.com) is a story about love – middle class angst ridden individuals wandering if they are in love with those they are with and then what they do when they realise they are not... (Reminded me of a few law firms!). Starring Hugh Bonneville, Dougie Henshall, Victoria Hamilton, Anne Marie Duff and Eric Cantona, it was funny, engaging, squirm-inducing in parts as some thoughts and comments seem horribly familiar... Interestingly, for somebody like me who bemoans the fact that so many lawyers and accountants have no imagination or artistic bent to how they approach business or life, the CEO of Slingshot is a qualified solicitor – Arvid Ethan David. Although I did recently meet a practising lawyer who writes plays... So perhaps there is hope for the hidden talents of unit-burdened professionals to have an outlet...

French Film was shown as a way of supporting Merlin. One, a film about survival of the most basic kind – food, water, and health. The other, a film about survival of a different, but equally basic, kind – the need to feel that we live our lives with others, not just next to them. And in both films, the quest to achieve that.

A couple of weeks later, it was suggested that I should take advantage of some career coaching sessions the firm offered to departing members of staff. At the time the cynic in me saw this as little more than an attempt to convince me that leaving was a mistake, and that it still wasn’t too late to change my mind. Add to that an inbuilt reluctance to open up to strangers, and it would be fair to say that I was sceptical about the value of these sessions. However, after the second or third time the topic was raised, I felt it might be easier to go along with idea, if for no other reason than to get people off my back about the whole thing.

There was little magic about the coaching sessions themselves. An hour or so with a blank piece of paper jotting down background on why I had originally chosen law as a career, why I had now decided to move on, what ideas I had for the future, and so forth, followed by an hour discussing these subjects with the “career coach”. After a couple of weeks, there was a second hour-long session to discuss my thoughts after the initial discussion, and to see how things were progressing in deciding what to do next.

The sessions were of enormous benefit in several ways. Firstly as an opportunity to identify honestly and constructively that as a person I have particular character traits, both strengths and weaknesses, that would always be a factor in the success (or otherwise) of whatever role I moved on to do. Appreciating and accepting these traits was fundamental in ensuring that the move I made was a positive one for me, both professionally and personally. The time I spent with the career coach helped me to be honest with myself about where my strengths were and to see that certain of the roles I was considering might not allow me to make the most of them.

The sessions also focussed me on what specifically had motivated me about my original career choice. They helped me to realise that there were aspects of my existing job that continued to motivate me on a personal level, even though at the time various other emotions made it very difficult to see that. Having recognised that fact, it became much easier to see that actually a radical change of career path was neither necessary nor appropriate at that particular time. By focussing on whether potential roles emphasised the aspects of my existing job that continued to motivate me and whether they would also enable me to maximise my own personal strengths it became far easier to identify those positions that would offer the balance of professional achievement and personal purpose that I was looking for.

It also surprised me how much it helped to discuss the decision to change jobs with someone from outside my usual circle of friends and family. Getting an opinion from someone who was completely objective about the whole situation was extremely useful. To discuss the issues that I was encountering with someone who has helped others face them before, and to realise that I was not the first person to encounter these scenarios and career decisions, was reassuring. On reflection, whilst it might well have been naive to feel that I was the only person to have faced these issues, it is easy to lose perspective when your principal focus is on coming to terms with the fact that the existing role, the upshot of ten years’ hard work, has not worked out how you had hoped.

In summary the time spent with the career coach helped me to get away from the mindset that says “take anything – it has to be better than this”. With the benefit of the sessions I was able to take a more structured and thought-through approach to moving careers, whereby I sought to understand properly the challenges and requirements that I was seeking in my future career, and the coaching helped me to evaluate better how suited I was for the roles I was considering and vice versa.

Dan Whiter (he of the Firm Beliefs occasional guest blogger and mad Gobi desert running habit), steered discussion towards how we set, and achieve, our goals. Granted his method of illustrating his points centred upon a series of graphic photographs of festering feet and tantalising terrain; however, all of us were able to discuss with passion what the issues are that tend towards hindering us in the achievement of our aims.

It appeared to those of us who attended the dinner that leadership and strategy are the key issues for 2008 - whatever happens in the market place and in whatever area of business we find ourselves. It was interesting to note that the issues facing those who run a marketing or a technology business are the same as those in the legal profession. Furthermore, those who were new to running a business were able to listen to the experiences of those who have been running a business for quite some time, and to learn how one's experience of running a business changes as the leadership role becomes a more familiar one.

A good evening which gave us a good start to the new year.

Regardless of weather (I particularly love running by the sea in mid storm – although obviously not in the Chilterns!), there I am, making a complete fool of myself as my ipod ear plugs fall out (thereby making me run with my hands in my ears to keep them in), my heart rate strap seems to fall down to my waist (all to do with the type of sporting bra, so my navy (male) friend tells me...), my pink heart rate monitor beeps all the time telling me that I have reached the ‘you should be dead’ zone, my water bottle lid keeps falling off, soaking me, making me look like I am in a Miss Wet T shirt competition, my bananas (nicely cut up for ease of swallowing) mulch with my blackberry which I have foolishly put in the same pocket... And then, I am overtaken by an old lady walking her two Chihuahuas.

But I still love it. I have had to ask myself why (enough people have asked me the same question!). Then, I got a bit of advice from Dan (already known to those of you who read our blogs) and he said, in response to my ‘I hate hills’:

It hits you as your body goes from comfortable status quo into extra effort. Try preparing for the hill by imagining the extra effort you'll need to do. Just wake up your body to the fact that it is not allowed to get too comfortable.

And I realised that it is that that I love. To look ahead, be prepared to change pace, to think about dealing with issues that you have you not yet even imagined. It is the same for business – you cannot amble along at the same pace because around you are hills, woods, swamps, water, etc – none of which you can control. You need to be ready to deal with whatever the business world (competitors, clients, staff, colleagues) throw at you. If you are too complacent, you cannot run up that hill. You give up half way. You need to look ahead and see the hill and then mentally prepare to go up against it with vigour. .

The other thing that he said was ‘are you going to compete or complete? the strategies are very different.’ When I first started this running, all I wanted to do was complete. And I always did. Now, I want to beat the person in front of me (one can dream...). That is how it is for our business. We simply wanted to break even in the first year or so. We were careful and cautious – somewhat bland perhaps. We tried to do things in the same way as our competitors: wore suits, spoke management jargon, pontificated about how we got our MBAs... Now, we want to beat our competitors. We have been asked to do projects which had originally been given to the established stalwarts of law firm consulting. When we asked why, we were told that we were easier to talk to , to deal with, they trusted us not to turn our noses up at their attempts to be proactive in running their business, that we helped firms make real changes, not just cosmetic document-based ones. ‘Bright, young and zippy’ said one firm! So we now know that we can compete – not necessarily by doing it in the same way but by achieving better results for clients.

So it is with my running – I cannot compete with the hardened runners (the Dans of this world) who can run without music, at a pace a bird would find hard to keep up with, over very long distances, carrying half a city on their backs, their feet falling apart and their body weight diminishing by the second. But I can compete with those who want to have fun running, who want to raise a bit of money for charity and who are happy to chuck water all over themselves when they cannot work out how to get the cup in their mouth which the nice lady on the side of the course gives them... And at the end of the day, the Dans of the world, and the Saras of the world achieve what they set out to do, they achieve their goals – and get that same feeling of achievement and obtain the result that they want at the end.

And in order to reach my running goals, I surround myself with people who can provide me with the skills I do not have. Dan – mentor and experienced runner, mentally and physically running along side me – technical skills (stop breathing like that!, do this and your stitch will go) and mental skills (if you cannot play music to give you a lift, imagine something that makes your heart beat fast!); John – do NOT eat the butter Sara eat the olive oil; put the nuts in your handbag and eat them mid-meeting to keep energy levels up; Esther (aged 12) – always wear pink when running, it makes people smile at you more (an early understanding of the concept of brand identity I feel!); David – of course a charity will want you, trust me we will find one! Run this half marathon, it is a flat one...; my mother – are you mad, you will die, pace yourself.So it is with business – we cannot do everything to equal excellence. The trick is to know what you can and cannot do and surround yourself with those who can fill the gaps – that way you get to where you want to be quickly, efficiently and you learn a lot along the way from others.

At Firm Beliefs, we each have different skills and we learn from each other. When you find somebody who can do something that your business needs better than you can, use them in your team! So – running a marathon, running a business. What’s not to love?!

To read about ‘real’ running, go to Dan’s blogs...

Once he had taken us through how he had researched his latest book on the subject ("The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking" (Harvard Business School Press, 2007), with very engaging anecdotes about some of the best known leaders of industry, we began to see the commonalities that each leader had. Each leader had the ability to take opposing business models or potential business situations and, rather than making a decision as to the one or the other, they were able to take the best of each and improve on them.

The most fascinating discussion took place between the Professor and his invited guest, Taddy Blecher, President of CIDA City Campus (www.cida.co.za). An ex-consultant, Taddy started the first free university in South Africa, providing higher education to the poorest students in the country. Rather than follow the traditional models of such provision, he and others came up with a completely different way of providing the education – encompassing old methods but enhancing them by introducing hitherto untested or unimagined methods.

In the current marketplace, it is important that leaders of organisations are able to think differently. The old adage that if you act the same, the outcomes will be the same, is never more appropriate than now.

Integrative thinkers look at the old models and if they do not fit – they build a new one – they do not waste time in wondering why their business does not fit into an old mold!!

Firm Elite is populated by and nurturing more "integrative thinkers". If you want to see such thinking in action, go to http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/firmelite.php

James Knight of Lawyers-Direct regaled us with his story. How somebody from one of the most conservative professions decided to set up a firm using ex-city lawyers to offer city services at a non-city rate. By enabling those lawyers to work from home. By focusing on the need to keep the lawyers happy, by specifically focusing on the need for support and team work, by ensuring that the lawyers benefit from bringing in new work (more than they ever would at a traditional firm), Lawyers-Direct delivers the service that many clients expect, but don't always obtain. Lawyers-Direct is about to be rebranded 'Keystone Law' (from 1st May) - and it would appear that this firm of lawyers certainly shows signs of completing the bridge between legal advice that clients want, delivered at a rate they like, and the experts who can provide it.

As always, other guests at our latest Firm Elite dinner (most of whom were not from the legal profession) were able to discuss and direct questions at James, and each other. By the end of the evening, as usual, new ideas had been gleaned, and new practices considered for the future.

For more on the firm: go to http://www.lawyers-direct.biz/

Why, you might ask, would we surround ourselves with those who are facing financial ruin, moving into a business world of misery and poverty, and who see no future in their businesses or organisations any more? So said a law firm managing partner to me the other day. A managing partner of a firm which ought to know better than to view the future as a negative and dark black hole...

What we noticed, as we did the rounds, was that there were no professional advisors at many of these events. And yet at these often high profile events, individuals were talking about finding new ways of doing business, looking for new openings as old markets died and new markets opened up, and moving on to replace those businesses which do not harness the future opportunities that a changing commercial world can provide. Even at the smaller trade events, where entrepreneurial and 'new market/new product' businesses were present, there was a paucity of professional advisors on the ground, listening to what the market players are saying about future opportunities as they see them.

Some events (too few) however did contain professional advisers who understand that if they are to support their clients in their endeavours, they need to be as au fait with future opportunities as their clients are - and indeed they need to be even more so. One such event was the Kleinwort Benson Entrepreneur's Evening (www.kleinwortbenson.com) at which Andrew Halper, partner at Eversheds (www.eversheds.com), spoke compellingly about how he supports clients who wish to make a business move to or who wish to partner with organisations in China. As a profession, lawyers need to ask themselves how they can produce such innovative forward thinking lawyers and yet at the same time still manage to produce those lawyers who think that they should wait for clients to come to them and then respond to their clients' needs retrospectively and passively.

Whilst it is always pleasant to be at an event that does not contain other professional advisors (unless they are of the proactive kind!), and to be able to immerse onesself in a world where business risk is an opportunity and not something to be avoided, one does have to ask where professional advisers can add value to clients if they are not out there, listening and talking with those whom they purport to support.

There are clearly many complex factors to be taken into account in such a decision - as clients often grapple with when they seek our help.

One observation I made on that day, when watching attorneys from different countries interact with each other, was this - they gave time to listening to the issues which their fellow delegates faced in their own countries. They particularly listened to the issues which clients faced in the various parts of the world. I heard stories of one lawyer in the US who provided what was termed 'an outstanding service' to the client of a lawyer from Europe. It seems that each firm pulls out all the stops for their network connections' clients and I heard stories of immediate responses to communications and excellent service to the attorneys which of course in turn enables good service to the clients.

Compare that with a recent experience I had of a law firm with an international practice. There was an issue with how different offices based in different countries serviced the clients of the firm as a whole. One office in London complained that their counterparts in Italy did not (a) respond to requests for co-operation from the London office; (2) did not take the time to ascertain the real needs of the London solicitor or the client and (3) in the end did not enhance the service delivery of the law firm as a whole.

In essence, the NLLF network style lawyers treat their NLLF network colleagues as clients. The international practice lawyers appear to treat their colleagues as, as one such solicitor told me, 'irritants' or 'yet another internal email or 'phone call to return', which clearly will impact on the service that the international law firm's clients receive.

Just two situations, from which a sweeping generalisation cannot be made! But an interesting one. So, if you are part of a multi-office organisation, are you certain that the structure, the culture and the relationships between staff in different offices serve your clients as well as they might? What can international organisations learn from the network structures - and vice versa?

Tuesday night’s Firm Elite dinner was my first one since joining the team in April. I’ve never posted a blog before either, so a couple of firsts in a week. Sara’s blogs are hard to compete with. She probably kept a hilarious diary as a teenager, and became an expert in wittily deconstructing her ever expanding network of fabulous friends. I listened to The Smiths on my own in Northampton.

The Firm Elite dinner was similar to a three act play:

Act 1: Arrival. Having rushed around sweaty London all day, and sweated over tourists on tubes it was a pleasant surprise to arrive at the Royal Overseas League in Mayfair. Having a beer and good conversation with Ruth, guest speaker and CEO of Stop The Traffic (STT), we were looking out from our posh castle over Hyde Park - great.

Act 2: Dinner. Sara insists that everyone rotates after each of the three courses, so by the end of desert I’d had increasingly animated chats with most of the group, and had a sore neck. The food was very good, and the wine was a bit too nice.

Act 3: Debate. Ruth spoke passionately about the need to stop people trafficking around the world, and about how STT had presented 1.5million signatures to the UN and had won UN Ambassador status. So far in its short three year life, STT had been extremely successful, but was now encountering issues of funding, organization and strategy similar to many charities.

Ruth is clear about targeting the younger generation with the STT message, and that grass roots is the way forward operationally. STT has grown exponentially and come to a crossroad – how to keep their integrity as a campaigning organization with an independent voice while maturing organisationally to accommodate rapid growth?The debate was then free-flowing and fast ranging, looking at everything from strategic income generation to pleasing the different stakeholders to growing grass roots in London schools. I will be meeting Ruth soon to help develop some of these thoughts.

The Firm Elite dinners are, I believe, pretty unique as far as networking goes. Interesting, fun, thought provoking, and ultimately about connecting diverse people from different walks of life to discuss business problems. After all, life is all about making connections.

However, when I asked the question 'what do you mean by value?', the conversation stalled. Silence in the room. After a while, a few suggestions were made. Quite sensible ones in fact. But in no way were they focused on what the clients actually needed or wanted - because the lawyers just did not know. They did not have those types of conversations with clients (yes, plenty of client questionnaires, feedback forms, informal lunches etc) but very little knowledge was shared between solicitor and client about the client's market, what was happening in it, what might happen in it and how the client might need to adapt or develop the business appropriately. Certainly no conversations were had about how the client might want to create a new market or control an existing one. So how therefore could the solicitors advising them know how their advice might enable them to achieve the business goals? How could they know what 'value' might be to any particular client?

It put me in mind of a recent holiday in Crete when we travelled with a 'bespoke travel' holiday company, very reputable with great attention to detail. Upon enquiring about where to buy food etc, our rep told us 'well I would like to say Try Lidls but I have been told that our clientele would not go to Lidls'. She then told us that she frequently finds nice, middle class, cash rich, time poor guests shopping in Lidls. That information proved to be very valuable to many - times have changed and habits have changed. Where we will or will not spend our money has changed and Lidls can add value to our holiday experience as well as a Waitrose. She was in constant contact with guests, her line managers less so. She knew what information would enable us to enjoy our holiday more by getting what we needed at a price we wanted, leaving us to spend the money saved on different aspects of the holiday.

So, wonderful to think about how as lawyers we can 'add value' to a client's experience of using us to help develop his or her business or drive a transaction or project forward. But we need to be in conversation with every client to make sure that we are picking up on what is actually needed, in today's and tomorrow's market, not just on what we think is needed.

We work with law firm clients on what some call 'market sensing' - law firm markets are their clients' markets. (http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/marketsensing.php) Know your clients' market, know your clients' business aims for survival or penetration or dominance in that market, and you might be a little clearer on what 'adding value' means for them.

Mondays and Fridays are obviously more emotive and popular for song writers and film producers as well as for journalists but we never actually got around to a full discussion of appropriate and fitting film titles to describe the week so far - although we are all looking forward to a Long Good Friday later in the week.

The Firm Elite dinner guests came from a variety of sectors - professional services, the public sector, private banking and consultancy. Rather than focus on the headlines of the day conversation was led towards the reasons why all businesses face challenges at anytime - not just in supposedly "tougher" times.

Our opening "round table" (though a rectangular one in reality) discussion led off with the reasons why successful companies can fail spectacularly because of an inablility to manage change or adopt the right strategy. A recent Harvard Business Review featured an article on "7 reasons why companies fail big" and as usual after only 3 of the 7 "reasons" our discussion had spun off into a range of directions involving all guests.

Firm Elite guests are rarely at a loss for words or insight and the discussion was both educational in terms of economic and business history and enlightening in terms of business practice across different sectors. Firm Elite members are, by their nature, proactive and driven to contribute to successful businesses and grow individually as business people. As usual the dinner and discussions filled 3 hours with no let up in intensity or quality.

This guest left both more informed and more positive that the Firm Elite network he was a part of would surely supply not just an excellent networking opportunity with senior figures but a "web of knowledge" that would help him and his organisation be competitive in the more "interesting" times ahead.

In the adjudication corner, Toby Riley-Smith; arbitration was championed by George Alliott; Patrick Green mesmerised us with the benefits of mediation; Peter Susman QC (aka ‘the Conciliator’) used the game show medium, and his toned upper torso, to enthuse us with the benefits of his chosen method of conciliation; Nazeer Chowdhury fought back from the negotiation corner and we heard Richard Mawrey QC advocate the litigation process. Ably refereed by Bernard O’Sullivan, and presided over by Master Robert Turner, the evening saw barristers thrown out of the balloon, leaving Richard Mawrey QC as sole occupant.

Litigation won the day then. So still a way to go for alternative methods of resolving disputes. However, as one fellow guest said, so impressed was he with the barristers' witty argument (and their hats, their hijacking of lyrics and letters written by others... and their muscles) that any method would have suited!

As a guest of Jer O’Mahony and Graham Neale of Killik Asset Management, and listening to their discussions about the financial markets, and the positive aspects of share movements and markets, it seemed only natural to move on, with a feeling that the world is not such a bad place after all, to the highly anticipated event at the Christian Louboutin Mount Street Boutique – shoes, and price tags, aplenty.

Quality discussion with Jer and Graham, quality shoes from Christian Louboutin. Was I sufficiently reassured about the future wealth of the UK money markets to get out my card and spend on the fabulous shoes? Only me and my bank manager will ever know...

Take law firms – walking through the front door to some firms, you are not greeted, you are not welcomed and you are left standing, whilst listening to receptionists gossip with each other or stare at their screen. Compare that with the firm where you are addressed by name after introducing yourself, offered a drink, told when your lawyer is coming to fetch you and the time of day is passed with you. If this is your first visit, which would leave you with the better impression? And does the lawyer make you feel the same?

Productising the service is an activity which we are conducting with a number of clients at the moment – mapping the entire client experience from beginning to end, and hopefully to beginning again on new matters. The client experiences a number of touch points – each of which has to be perfect for the client. How would your organisation stand up to that? Not just from a systems point of view but also from a human interaction point of view?

I recently had an unexpected problem with my car which necessitated a call to the Vauxhall garage in Aylesbury to ask if they could (a) fix it and (b) provide me with a hire car. I was told that as I had not booked the hire car in advance, I could not have one. (Note to self: take crystal ball out of cupboard, dust it off and look ahead to see when my car will unexpectedly break down so I can order the hire car...) I suspect that the individual dealing with me on the telephone merely meant that they had not anticipated my need and so there were no cars left – but her lack of interest in my plight translated itself into lack of care over the wording she used and the impression she gave me. Thereafter I was disgruntled of Wendover... Instead, I turned to the wonderful AA who arrived, were very friendly, commiserated with me, tweaked things under the bonnet, towed car away, arranged for a hire car to be delivered to my home and collected it again a few days later.

Clearly the AA has a good system for provision of hire cars. Clearly the Vauxhall garage does not. However, had the Vauxhall employee understood the importance of providing a decent service she may have chosen her words a little more wisely, and perhaps tried to look for a solution (such as ‘we can recommend a good hire car firm round the corner. Would you like me to ring them for you?').

Service is key at such times as this. Even if a system fails, human endeavour can often remedy that failure. So focus on systems, but also on staff. If they don’t believe in good service, no system in the world can provide what customers and clients are looking for.

As the hour approached, I looked at my desk and saw the To Do list of projects for existing clients, detailed proposals for the new clients, the need to continue to work on the new web site, the Firm Elite list of dates for next year, the launch of our new Firm Beliefs services for charities and social enterprises, work on a new business I am setting up with others in the social enterprise sector, birthday gifts to buy, ironing to be done, dinner party dates to arrange, dogs to walk, cats to feed...

I confess I almost did not want to go. Surely it would be better to carry on through that To Do list.

But go I did, enjoying time with a friend beforehand and then meeting interesting people at the event, just before the recital. (Good business models and innovative business thinkers are everywhere if you just look for them. Firm Elite dinners do not have the monopoly on them - although of course we try!)

Then the small orchestra played for us - and suddenly the business world was placed into the background of my mind. For half an hour, my brain was relaxed and calm and 'time out' took place. As ex-lawyers, we tend to have lived our lives in 6 minute or 15 minute chunks - and that makes us efficient and appreciate the value of a minute filled well! But sometimes it means we do not appreciate the value of not doing anything for a minute. By the end of the night, my To Do list seemed easily manageable, the time I had spent at the event had both been a pleasure and energising; the music calming, the business concept discussions stimulating - and some new strategic thinking had developed about not just clients' businesses but also our own.

At Firm Beliefs, we design away days, away weekends, retreats etc for clients so that they can review their strategic goals etc, and always make sure we build in some R & R for them for this very reason.

So the next time you begin to have second thoughts about a particular meeting or event coming up, go to it. You may get more than you bargained for. And that To Do list not such a mountain to climb.

Back to the site itself, I commend it to you. Everything a website should be and everything a musician or music lover could want - all in the one place. I am told that future sites will include jazz and other genres. Focused as we are at the moment at Firm Beliefs on our own site being revamped, and on our clients' sites, it was nice to explore somebody else's in an industry which is not our own - and find the same purpose and ease of use which, regardless of industry background, every user wants.]]> Sara Dixon 2008-10-28 http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/blog.php?id=44 The 1st Firm Elite dinner of 09 and of a new presidency in the US brought together a truly international determined dozen.

Why determined? Firm Eliters have a firm belief that commitment to innovation, communication and offering to help their colleagues and clients is the path to success - downturn or boom!

The discussion was, of course, both inspiring and wide ranging. The state of various nations and their economies (Spain, the US and South Africa) the rise of Obama ( an insight from our glamorous and relocated Californian guest) and the growth of niche online networking but some of the topics.

Firm Elite continues to evolve- as a knowledge sharing platform; as a business generation tool;as an ideas forum; and as a growing group of business leaders and directors.

What did this member think? When a dinner discussion starts with a health and fitness discussion, migrates to the world economy and new political era, moves on to
competing in a challenging new market place then gets down to key sectors and the fortunes of various economies - you know you are in the company of a true elite.

To borrow inspiration from a former president "Ask not what Firm Elite can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Firm Elite."

20th Jan 09, Firm Elite member.

Wandering from meeting to meeting and social event to social event, one has to wonder where the energy and drive so recently shown over the past few years by many individuals and organisations has gone. Many leaders appear too paralysed to think of the options available to them in terms of the future. They are sticking to business plans which were apt when originally envisaged but which may no longer be appropriate in their entirety, simply because they do not know how to generate alternative options or to ascertain which of their existing plans will remain effective to drive the organisation forward.

Individuals fear for their jobs, for their homes and for their hitherto-dependable lifestyles. They often appear lacklustre where once they were passionate about their jobs and their organisations.

And yet, those organisations and individuals still retain the skills and attributes which have always been there. We simply need to remind ourselves that, whilst the external environment has changed, the internal drive to be successful remains within individuals. And there are individuals who are in fact still showing passion and energy in their dealings with their customers, clients and stakeholders. And that is catching. It gives an impression of confidence, ability and future success which others can match in turn.

There can be nothing more frightening than a blank sheet of paper for some. For others, it can represent the beginning of a new script, a new story, a new ending. Which route an individual takes depends on their personality. But it also depends on the encouragement and drive and dare I say passion of those around them. So which are you? And how catching is your passion?

Whining to a friend who had called to see how I was doing, he reminded me of something that I had put on our website a while back to help others to plan for the business aspect of their trip: 10 Tips to Prepare for that Business Trip Abroad. He said he had used it himself. How embarrassing to be reminded of something I had done when my mind was clearly in a far better state than it was at that moment!

So I embarked upon my trip in a far calmer state of mind than otherwise might have been the case. Calm. Able to relax. To reflect. To plan. And to observe what was going on around me.

How frequently we have a chance to observe what surrounds us depends in part on the purpose of our trip I find. If on holiday, I am relaxed and am perfectly happy to wonder about the people around me. I try to imagine what their lives are like, how they work and where they live. What is their relationship with the person sitting next to them? Are they family members? Are they friends or colleagues? Have they just met and are about to embark upon the greatest romance of all time? However, when I am travelling for work I concentrate more on my own plans and those of the client I am visiting. And I know I am not alone in that difference of observational approach.

Which makes it all the more important that, as a business traveller, I am alert to the contents of a handy leaflet relating to people trafficking (currently on our site in the resources section). In relation to children, for example, you should be alert to:

a non-UK international child travelling alone; the child that does not have many possessions but does have a mobile phone; the child is not travelling to the UK to meet his or her guardian; the child is suspicious of adults or may show signs of inappropriate or sexualised behaviour towards men.

Stop the Traffik is planning an awareness campaign, which alerts business travellers to the dangers of people trafficking and which provides details of what to look for and how to report any suspicions. The website www.businesstravellers.org contains some news items and updates about trafficking, much of which probably goes on under our very noses as we travel across the globe.

So the next time you travel on business, by all means concentrate on the 10 tips to focus on the business aspect. But also concentrate on observing what is going on around you. You might be observing more than you realise.

If you are a charity or social enterprise, or do not work within the charity sector but do have a ‘pet charity’ that you support, please email us with details of any events or developments and we will publicise them in our newsletter. Our newsletter readers come from a broad range of sectors, not just law firms and charities, so the range of exposure is wide. Email to sally@firmbeliefs.co.uk

But do not assume that the media (of whatever variety) is that instant a tool however... Consider the example of Seddons law firm which conducted a survey in January 2008, issuing the usual press release shortly thereafter. Coverage of the survey began to develop and one year later, January 2009 saw the broader press take an interest and the results of the survey covered in a leading institutional journal on marriage and cohabitation. Said Deborah Jeff, partner at Seddons ‘it is incredible how press releases stay out there and get picked up months later.”

We are pleased to say that Andrew Caesar Gordon will be returning to repeat his guest appearance at a Firm Elite dinner in November. Email sally@firmbeliefs.co.uk if you wish to placed on the guest list.

We particularly enjoy reading about the latest business developments of our clients and contacts as told to Richard Brent and others at Managing Partner. Those of you who met Richard (the editor) at one of our Firm Elite dinners [http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/news.php?postId=21] will recall him as being a good listener who likes to feature the best in law firm thinking and practice. Indeed, Richard has been a guest blogger on our site: http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/news.php?postId=17.

To learn more about Managing Partner, its history and how it can assist you publicising the positive aspects of your law firm, please go to our resources page and click on the link to Richard's article.

Take Stop the Traffik for example. Following the event at which Cherie Booth QC and Antonio Mario Costa (Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) addressed invited guests, face to face, a webcast extract of the event was placed on their website. To follow this there is to be a global webcast, directed at the younger market who automatically use the web as a resource and information point. as well as a book (due to launch in March 2009) coauthored by Steve Chalke, with a chapter contributed by Cherie Booth.

I use the word ‘complained’ relating to the partner because, on that day in that moment, he felt under pressure, demotivated, very tired and the communications strategy we were considering for dealing with some tricky internal decisions seemed just too much for him to think about just then. Leadership within law firms, like any organisation, is a tough role at the moment.

I asked him what he thought a leader was? Did he think he had consciously ‘made himself’ into one or did he think he had just been living out what he ‘was’? I (and therefore he!) was very aware of the academic debate regarding the various viewpoints. We both decided that we liked the John Quincy Adams suggestion that, ‘If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.’ Words from a US President of the 19^th century. They still have a resonance today. Interestingly, there is an element of ‘passivity’ about the word ‘inspire’. Individuals can inspire others, not necessarily by planning to so inspire, but simply by following their own passions which others notice and react to. This, he felt, was what had happened to him, such that he resented having been placed in that position of leadership without, he felt, having any say about leadership in his promotions to pretty near the top of the corporate tree. Others, he felt, judged him to be a leader but he did not feel like one.

His lack of energy and his demotivation reminded me of a previous blog (http://www.firmbeliefs.co.uk/news.php?postId=47) wondering where all the passion has gone in the business world. If those in the position of leadership don’t have passion, that will impact upon others at a critical time.

One of the key aspects of the Firm Beliefs role in organisations is to encourage those at different levels and in different roles within an organisation to understand the world of the others; it enables an understanding of why an individual may behave as they do, may make the decisions that they do, have the attitudes that they do. Towards the end of my meeting with the partner, one of his juniors knocked on the door. ‘Fancy a drink?’ he asked. ‘You looked today like you could do with one and frankly you probably need one right now. A few of us are thinking of going for a quick few and we thought you should come too.’ It mattered not that the junior had been on one of our programmes which included trying to get to grips with what his leader’s role was and how that might impact on those around him. So it mattered not that 6 months before that day, he would not have thought of dragging his boss out for a few drinks. All that mattered was that at that day, in that moment, he thought of the impact of the current financial environment on his boss, and of the decisions that his boss was having to make, and of the impact of those decisions on his boss. And he acted upon it.

The next day, the partner returned to work emotionally and mentally refreshed (albeit also hungover...) and suddenly aware of how his energy and drive, which he had always taken for granted, had supported and influenced those in his team over the years such that, when he needed the reinstatement of his passion for work, his team were there for him. From then, he was able to ‘know the way, go the way and show the way’ refreshed and revitalised. Whilst he may not have intended being a leader, he was one and, fittingly, his team had been able to lead him through a brief but dark moment in return.

The round table discussion reminded us on the need to ensure that all 4 business systems of staff, finance, clients and customers, and operations work together. And that what worked 20 years ago might still work today IF we take into account latest developments in communication and in cultural expectations of our future staff and clients.

Conversation spanned tweeting, alternative banking systems (underground and hidden), which industries pay bills quickest, facebook photographs and marathon running... A great atmosphere which was relaxed yet stimulating.

I came away refreshed in terms of our own organisation and what i need to do to ensure its continued success; and much the wiser in terms of how other organisations and sectors operate.

It was not so bad! The crowds were horrifying, of course. I was shaking so much when I saw them that my friend David had to put the e-chip on my shoe as I was totally incapable of following the (pretty basic it must be said) instructions... I lined up at the very back of the crowd so as not to feel crowded in. I stood with the beer bellies and the men dressed as rhinos. A suitably realistic fellow crowd I felt...

Then they put the start back by 15 minutes... So I positioned myself even further back as more crowds came in, and stood next to the 5 men and women running as a long sausage dog (for a dog charity) and we discussed the merits of various types of dog biscuit.

The race track is hard to run on and bumpy in parts. And not enough water available but I carried so much of my own I thought I ought to set up on the side myself and pass it to others! My carbo gel things fell out of my container so I did not even use one of those. The wind in parts was tough but having run the Bicester 10k and having had Dan warn me about the wind tunnels there (and kindly position himself between me and the wind to start with!) I was prepared to run into the wind and if it came from the side, to not let it knock me sideways. Played havoc with my hair though! Running with a whole hedge over your face is not a great thing. There were a few of what people called 'hills' but frankly nothing compared to running in the Chilterns!

I ran next to a lady for a bit who I often meet at 10ks who is undergoing chemotherapy and we chatted a bit and then I ran on. Amazing the number of people running for whom running a race takes sheer guts and determination. As they say, courage is something you have if you are frightened, or up against some other barrier, but still push yourself.

When individuals leave an organisation, what they leave behind is not just the empty office desk or space, vibrant personality and professional or technical competence, but a management or business skills gap. And effective skills, as we all know, are the key value for any organisation to develop and implement. For those organisations that have not identified where the key business or management skills are in their organisation, before making cuts in staff, concentrating instead on the technical or professional skills, those gaps can cause a halt or breakdown in the ability of their organisation to move forward and meet organisational challenges or needs – hardly the best state of affairs in the current climate.

For those organisations who have for years implemented a performance management programme, and therefore who have developed all staff with a conscious eye on the overall business needs, it is clear either which staff must be retained or which staff have the potential, right now, to perform their roles based on skills which they have developed over time within the performance management programme.

There is also a tremendous opportunity for individuals to share knowledge, and skills, that they may not have had the chance/been encouraged to share hitherto. We are seeing individuals being given a chance to develop new skills and who are thriving in the current economic environment. Of course we are also see those who are struggling.

There are examples of good adaptors to the current environment: take one of our charity clients, which has decided that it has key experience amongst its trustees, over and above the business skills necessary to drive the organisation forward, which it is using in the field. That trustee is sharing his practical experience to help deliver much needed services at the community level. In turn, heads of community development areas are attending trustee meetings not just to provide feedback on how projects are developing, but to contribute to some of the management discussions which take place, some of the managers having been made redundant.

What is key, right now, in your organisation is that you (1) know where your organisation is going and (2) know which of your staff has the skills, or the potential to develop them, in order to help the organisation to succeed. If you do not, you will find your organisation struggling to survive.

First response - this world will never 'return to normal'. What was normal can never be normal again. Society is changing its views on 'value', and indeed on 'values'. It is changing its focus within geographical and economic boundaries. For many, society is 'hunkering down' and 'getting back to basics'. So, what exactly do you think it will 'return to'? Each time we have come out of a recession, I recall people saying as the memory fades 'oh it is nice to get back to normal' but in reality the old normality had changed. High tec had taken on the jobs of individuals, communication had become faster (not necessariy easier though), work patterns had changed, the psychological contract between employer and employee had changed, whole sectors had developed and others disappeared.

Second response - put more money into the organisation? Why would you do that? For some law firms it is clear that they would not have survived the new legal services regime and client demands for service even before the downturn hit them. So unless you can say that the 'new normality' has changed the prospects for your organisation since then, your firm has little future, so why put more resources into it? For some charities, they were struggling before the recession - the need to 'run' a charity effectively and professionally, with income garnered from a number of different sources, yet still provide the impact that investors and donors required, was already tricky. Unless, again, the charity can see that the new normality changes their position, they ought not to seek further income which may eventually be dissipated without making any impact on the ground.

It is the skill of 'knowing the future' that we all seek, yet are unable to achieve. However, there are some areas of knowledge that are achievable: the skills of strategic planning, managing the unknown, making the most of scarce resources whilst harnessing the value to be obtained by those resources effectively, when to merge, knowing what people at least think they need now and in the future, being comfortable with risk and, if not avoiding it, at least managing it - the list goes on.

We hear of too many organisations seeking short term cash to tide them over 'until things get back to normal'. Of staff hours being cut. Or of staff being made redundant. Again, until things get back to normal. If somebody said to you today 'this is it - this is all there is', what would you do? Make the same decisions that you made yesterday or today when you made them in anticipation of the normality returning? And if somebody else said to you today 'the future is going to be totally different from today and yesterday and buyer behaviour will change and stakeholder needs will change and new entrants will come into your market', would you make today's decisions again?

Perhaps, yes, what worked yesterday may well work today or tomorrow. But you need to hazard at least an educated guess based on business and market awareness and skill before you can even begin to work that out. And unless you do that, you will risk continuing to plough good money into an organisation to enable it to survive for just a short while. Forget normality. Think reality.

It started on Tuesday night when I saw the barriers up across Tower Bridge. It did not occur to me, until it was pointed out to me by John, that they were for the marathon - in which I would really be running! Not a good feeling at that stage! Should have shut my eyes when crossing the bridge and risked being mown down by busily snapping away with their mobile phones Japanese tourists.

I further denied the possibility of my running a marathon when, that day, I decided to wear my pretty heeled sandals (with a bow) in the sunshine. I knew that they would rub my toes, having existed in my boots for the past few months. But I went ahead and wore them anyway. Bad move. I did indeed get a blister. After months of being careful about making sure my running shoes and socks would not cause blisters.

Then, on Wednesday, my friend David and I registered at the Marathon exhibition, using the DLR to get there, with David pointing out bits of the route that we would be running. Didn't quite seem real that I would soon be running through the toy town that is that part of London. We girded ourselves for the task ahead - Who cares about registration - your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to see who can get the most freebies! I won - thanks to a strategic purchase of the Evening Standard, costing 50p, which gave me a free book on the bars and pubs of London! Still not quite real. In fact quite surreal - one of the goody bags had a can of bitter in it! As we wandered about the exhibition, having registered and collected our little electronic chip, it became clear that everybody thought David was the runner and I was his supporter! It may have had something to do with the fact that he had on his Marathon jacket, whereas I had on my pink cardigan! I felt like standing in the middle of the arena and shouting 'Yes. Curvy people DO run marathons you know!' Strop over, I accompanied David to the pasta party.

I never care to see another dish of pasta again. Why people assume that the only way to carbo load is to eat pasta is beyond me. Have they not heard of bulgar wheat or couscous? I had pasta twice over 2 days and I ended up feeling like a bloated overweight elephant. As we munched our pasta, our apple, our yoghurt, drank our water, we listened to the words of wisdom coming from the podium at the front. Drink lots of water. But not too much. But not too little either. Adjust your intake according to the weather. Eat if you want to. Or not if you don't. Decisions decisions.

The following evening, having had no pasta at all that day, I dined at the Dorchester (as one does..). Nice starter (no pasta), excellent main course (steak, no pasta), superb pudding (chocolate sponge, no pasta...). 2 glasses of wine, lots of water. Surrounded by the wondrous Irish folk of the Cooperation Ireland legal dinner. If the luck of the Irish rubs off on me on Sunday, I shall be most pleased! A cabaret which was wonderfully risque, 1st edition James Joyce 'Ulysses' and safari holidays were auctioned and a great evening was had, for a very worthy enterprise.

I was there courtesy of Killik. As always Jer (one of my running gurus) was full of advice as to the amount of wine I could drink without damaging my chances of getting round the marathon. And Graham (he of the Radio 4 Today programme 'state of the markets' section - Forget, Wake up to Wogan; everybody should try 'Get up to Graham') explained clearly and succinctly the finer points of the current stock market. Actually very interesting! As long as my running speed does not reflect the current fluctuations in the market place, I will be fine. Slow but steady. Guaranteed rate of return based upon past behaviour which will be reflected in the future with no surprises like running faster and then slower. Not very exciting but a good reliable return on investment!

So, a week of barriers on bridges, freebie frolics, punishing pasta, and Irish shenanigins.

When I started this serious route towards a marathon last September (which was when I discovered the force that is Aussie Pete), I thought that running was a solitary experience. And in some senses it is. There is only me that can make my legs go faster or slower. Only my mind that can play tricks on me to keep me going. Only me that can stick to 4 small meals a day and be careful about what is on the plate! And yet, on those runs, particularly the long Sunday ones, into play comes all the training that I have done thanks to Aussie Pete in Hyde Park and at home with my weights, into my mind comes words of wisdom from Dan in iraq and Aussie Pete, encouragement I have had from Jer and Simon. I have had access to numerous people's houses to use the loo, people have run with me, walked with me, Robert has collected me in the car when it all got too much on a run, people have made me nutritious crunchy biscuits and tested bizarre health drinks for me, clients have reminded me to stretch in the middle of meetings, colleagues have shoved bananas and nuts my way in between meetings, a friend has let me leave running gear all over his flat for weeks, experienced runners have shared their advice with me ('don't stand near men at the start, they pee down the back of your legs!). People who don't even know me have given money to my mum for me. The wondrous collection of ladies who arranged and ran a coffee morning and raffle for me. People who have donated what little they have and people who have donated large amounts of money for a good cause. I have received cards and texts. Ipod tunes to inspire and run fast to and ipod tunes to relax to. People are coming to watch the event and to cheer.

So this has not been a solitary experience at all. And so, regardless of how slow I go, just me and my legs, on Sunday, or how much I, just me and my legs, crawl at the end, this has been a team effort. Just as the cancer patient in the isolation room, who will benefit from the money raised, depends on the team of nurses and doctors, medical researchers and hospital cleaners, hospital teachers and voluntary librarians, so have I relied on my team. And that is the magic of the marathon. It is not the running that is the achievement, it is being connected to and involved with and supported by all those who get us to the start of the run, and through it to the end. For each person running the marathon, there are countless people running it with them in spirit, if not in body. And each one has made a difference. That is the true meaning of the marathon. Not the time, not the gear, not the speed, not the runner. The true meaning lies in the role that each person plays in getting one human being to complete a race to raise money and awareness that will make an impact on the lives of those who need it.

The day started early. Tube travel was free (until 5pm) for runners. People, tall and thin, short and round, exchanged tips on the tube. (It is amazing how fear and excitement makes us less 'English' and we actually talk to strangers!). Meeting friends at Charing Cross, we boarded the train to the start. We got to the meeting area. Bags were stored in the large lorry, loos were visited (as always, long queues) and then I rushed to the start area. I positioned myself right at the back, away from the crowds. So I was one of the last in the vast crowd of runners in the red zone start area. I stood next to a very tall man who was able to point out what was happening elsewhere in the crowds. The race started - and 25 minutes later, we reached the start line! I was surrounded by cartoon characters, the 5 people dressed as a sausage dog, 4 people carrying a large blue piggy bank for cancer research, the ubiquitous rhinos - and others like me who just wanted their own space away from the throng.

I ran the first half - up until about mile 14. I was determined to run until after Tower Bridge. Thereafter I jogged and walked until mile 20 when my legs and feet just told me that they were not having any more if it! I gave in (having decided not to use anything other than lucozade sport to help with the energy levels) and took a carb gel with all the sugar and e-numbers contained within - which was the best thing I did! Fantastic lift and boost to the energy levels. Must remember to take them all the time now... I coupled that with 2 paracetomol and by mile 23 I had begun to jog and walk again and by mile 24 I decided I would run (yes for me, it was a running speed rather than jog!) to the finish line which I did. The heat and sun were intense. For those us slowies some of the early water stations were empty which was worrying but further up the trail, more appeared to have been delivered. Lucozade sport had no stock problems so I relied on those, although they were less frequent that the water stops. I had no suncream on until I met my husband at mile 17 when I sprayed it on liberally. Needless to say, I did burn beautifully and from mile 16 my hands had begun to swell and white patches appeared all over them where blood was clearly not getting to where it ought to go! I assumed that if I collapsed because it was a sign of danger, there were enough medics around to save me quickly, so just decided to carry on running with swollen hands.

Plenty of people in front of me were collapsing with injuries as well as the heat. The St John's ambulance people were wonderful. People in the crowds offered sweets, drinks, biscuits, fruit. And plenty of encouragement. Every time I stopped walking and ran for a bit, teeth gritted as the agony came back again, they cheered and said keep running. Churches and pubs alike were out in force - holy water was liberally directed at us (very cooling!), pub regulars tried to tempt us with beers (came very close to saying yes!) and the showers along the route soaked us - for about 3 seconds until the heat caused it to evaporate. Bands played, DJs played music, drums gave us a good pace to run to, even bellringers set up a portable bell ringing capsule! The support the crowd gave to those who were dressed up for charity was great. And a number of people at the back of the start with me were disabled in some way and they got the loudest of cheers from the people supporting at the start. It was a shame that the BBC only interviewed the faster charity runners or those who were celebrities. The real stories were at the back. But by the time they had got half way round, the BBC was winding up its coverage I believe. Next year I will take a camera and do my own version of where the achievements are!

Apart from towards the end when the only way to keep going was to grit teeth and focus on the blue lines on the ground which showed the quickest way to the finish, it was a good way to see London! Going from the older parts of London where the houses had personality and atmosphere, to other parts where the people were out in force and it was they who provided the personality and atmosphere. Even Canary Wharf had people out in force. Where normally during the week the sterile office blocks contain rather depressed individuals, on Sunday the streets outside were full of cheering crowds. And the sun on the Thames was a wonderful sight.

For me, meeting family at mile 17, friend Jer at Canary Wharf, and friend Simon at the end, was very important. And my nephew aged 9 ran a short distance with me at mile 17. Many of us running together looked out for each other. The girl suffering from lupus, the man recovering from cancer, the chap running dressed as a dog, the two young women just having the time of their life jogging and walking together after 10 years of separation, each supported the other when it was needed. Food and drink was shared. Stories were told. Whilst I would love to say 'I did it in 4 hours', I feel that I am much the richer for saying 'I did it in 6 hours and 25 minutes' because the real experience could not have been obtained doing a fast speed.

Reaching the end, as they took the chip off my shoe, placed the medal over my head, took my picture and handed me my goody bag and my own bag, I was a bit like a zombie. People were being ferried about in wheel chairs, others were on the floor, many were on mobile phones. I could not see any of the signs showing the way out, could not even read my race number on my top, but others could and pointed me in the right directions.

It took me longer than I imagined. I don't think I have ever been on my feet for 6 and a half hours, standing or walking! Let alone running. I am not sure I will ever want to do a full marathon again. But I overtook quite a few people throughout the day. I think I ended up within the last 2000 so must have overtaken a fair few. I am slightly proud that along parts of the route my ipod tracker tells me that I ran faster than I ever have before. I am very proud that I did not need medical support.

But I am most proud of the fact that nearly £3k has been raised for a hospital charity which aims to make cancer patients' lives a little easier and more comfortable, and which tries to provide the best medical resources for its patients and staff. And raising that £3k involved more than just me. As I said in my pre-marathon blog, the point is that help is provided where it is needed. And it is not the runner that does that - it is those who donate money and provide support in so many ways. With all the 'big money' figures being bandied around in the press at the moment about the trillions of debt, it makes me very aware that it is the small donations, the short texts and the quick phone calls, the handy tips and the advice that make the biggest impact where it is needed the most.

As many of you know, Firm Elite is all about (1) stimulating our brains into thinking about our businesses, our lives and our world from many different angles and perhaps learning something new, changing how we do things and achieving hitherto-unthought of goals; but it is also about (2) meeting like-minded people from different sectors and walks of life and then establishing relationships that turn out to be mutually beneficial on all sorts of fronts. And we Firm Eliters think about our relationships far more broadly than some might be used to.

Traditionally, people thought that, unless they could see a direct benefit between themselves and the other person, they ‘would not bother to take it any further’. I have to say that lawyers are very much of that view. Whereas charity clients, who have had to ‘achieve much with very little resource’ take a far more realistic, and broader, view of networking – even if the two people meeting cannot see any connections between them, they do tend to ask themselves ‘would somebody I know be of interest or value to somebody you know’. Their networks are framed far more widely from the beginning.

There has been some movement amongst my fellow lawyers over recent months: we see law firms finally getting clients together with other clients, thus placing themselves at the centre of the ‘hub of influence’ and ensuring that the next time any of their clients have an idea/issue/need, they call their lawyer first for his or her ideas on who might help. And that way the lawyer can pick up on opportunities for legal advice etc at that point. But, generally speaking, lawyers still have a way to go before they establish the methodology of the charity sector, the social entrepreneur or the many other sectors in which the marketplace has been competitive for many decades.

So it was that, during one particular week, I experienced two contrasting events.

First, I introduced a lawyer to an individual who, with his connections, could have been of great insight as to policy and strategic issues which faced the lawyer’s key client market. But the lawyer initially viewed the meeting with the idea that, unless the individual contact could directly assist the lawyer in obtaining new business (and hopefully even saving the lawyer the effort), that meeting would be of little use. A ‘little discussion’ beforehand with me saved the day and the lawyer began to see the benefits of being able to offer insight and indeed connections to his clients in a way that would help them to make their strategic decisions in a very competitive market.

The second event was one where 3 lawyers from different firms (Suzanne Kingston of Dawsons LLP; Rebecca Cockroft of Manches; Paul Newton of Clintons) wanted to advocate the use of a comparatively ‘forward looking’ system of providing legal advice to those facing family disputes: ‘collaborative law’. (http://www.resolution.org.uk/collaborative_family_law/) The three lawyers had been provided with a venue (the Killik music room), with a table of individuals who would be able to add value to their efforts (ie other professionals who could add to the services that the lawyers provided in a way that would differentiate those lawyers from their competitors) AND most importantly the lawyers had been provided with a room of people who had been asked by Killik to help support the lawyers in their wish to develop the ethos of collaborative law – even if that support would not directly benefit the others in the room in return. So, the network of individuals were there because they responded to a request from Killik to ‘help our contacts where you can’. Killik is at the centre of a networking hub – if we ask for their help, they provide it. If they ask for ours, either for themselves or for their contacts, we provide it. Very few people in that room went along on the basis that ‘I will only go if I think that I can directly achieve work from the event’. Killik has proven to be very influential in both the charity and legal markets in terms of finding, developing and delivering good service – both to their clients and to their contacts. If they ask for help, you give it. As it turned out, the concept of collaborative law is a good one – and one which deserves to succeed on so many fronts and the idea of which, for many who were there, would drive them to support it on a personal basis, let alone on a business one.

So, to go back to my interesting few weeks, observing people’s views on, and ability to effectively harness, the power of one’s own supporters has been an interesting experience. I tend to take Firm Eliters for granted sometimes. They ‘get it’. It is not until one sees it ‘done badly’ that one realises how rare are those who do it well.

So, the next time you meet somebody, think not ‘what can we do directly for each other’ but rather ‘what can people I know do for people you know’. Suddenly, you are at the centre of a far wider hub of influence than you realised. And that will only serve you well in today’s market place of opportunity.

But not all Toxic Debt is totally toxic and time will show that. The trouble is that it carries a truck load of assumptions with it. It started off as being sub-prime (aka ‘lost forever’?) and quickly got added to by banks’ commercial lending and equity in businesses which today look a lot less recoverable than at the time because of the state of the economy – particularly if looked at through ‘stress test’ (aka ‘total risk aversity’) specs. But although this second tranche feels toxic now, will it be a couple of years down the line as the economy recovers? Telling the difference between permanent and temporary toxicity is the skill on which investor profits will be made. And that skill is an art as much as a science which means experience is a key factor in working out which is which. Do you have it? Not sure I do which is why my name isn’t Buffett I guess.

Same goes for any partner’s practice. Most don’t look great at the moment but is the deficiency all permanently toxic? Or is some only temporary and will pick up nicely again with economic recovery? With partners who you know well (and you ought to after all you are in partnership with them) - it’s a little easier than with those you don’t. Most firms will need to recruit laterally at some stage, particularly the mid-market and smaller firms. If you turn away anyone who hasn’t the perfect numbers you want right now then chances are you’ll recruit no-one and so miss some really good people. It is May 2009 and not many ‘on the move’ partner’s practices smell totally of roses. The numbers look a lot less good than they did two years ago.

Sitting opposite you is a prospective partner pushed forward by a recruitment agency, a neatly written concise (sorry, thin and sketchy) CV is on the table in front of you. You are hearing that he/she has delivered good fee earning over the past few years but they are down a bit at the moment. But you have doubts that all of that work is repeatable or indeed was ‘all theirs in the first place’. Just how toxic are they?

I’ve seen managing partners never get under the skin of these questions. I’ve seen them miss good people who have gone somewhere else and delivered nicely. I’ve seen them believe what they were being told with only skin deep investigation. I’ve seen them not press when the prospect is evasive. I’ve seen them fail to ask the prospect about their practice in any depth and then, after the interview, cast total doubt on the size of practice during the internal ‘shall we take him?’ decision meeting. And occasionally I’ve seen managing partners get to the bottom of it all very well at interview. Some of those have gone on to ‘sell’ the firm well to the prospect and some haven’t, resulting in the prospect choosing another firm.

Truth to tell, managing partners usually don’t interview very much so haven’t got the practice under their belt that underpins the experience needed to have a good hit rate on successful recruitment. That’s only natural and to expect anything else is. in many cases. very unreasonable. No blame should be attached. Some have had interview training, mostly traditional HR style process training, but that often doesn’t make the difference.

This is not an employment interview - it’s quite quite different – it is a business case investigation and ‘two way’ matching conversation between equals. Future success for a lot of small to medium sized firms is heavily bound up with getting the right people on board – few will have all the partners they need for the future already within the firm. Sadly, I’m afraid that for many firms the partner with a cracking proven-beyond-doubt practice in today’s climate is more than likely going to be unaffordable and will find offers from the bigger players far more attractive. So it’s the ‘others’ who have to be looked at. Come in Warren Buffet please!

Filtering and identifying those ‘others’ is the key to success. In essence the search is to see if they have two basic attributes – a track record of following and the skills to grow it when they are within your firm. If they have these then much of the Toxic Deficiency is likely to be temporary, they will be a good bet to join your firm and you may just be able to pick someone good up on the cheap because no other firm has spotted them!

Gareth Mason

Gareth can be contacted at Firm Beliefs on 01296 620006

Or via email c/o sara@firmbeliefs.co.uk

But for many employees, the pay off element, if significant, in some ways minimises the impact redundancy makes on them. For others, the opportunity to leave a job that they are not so comfortable with and the chance to find something that they might prefer again minimises the impact.

However, in the charity sector, how to deal with the impact and aftermath of redundancy on individuals and other employees is particularly tricky. Many who work within the third sector do so because they have a particular passion for or affinity with the cause of their charity or social enterprise. For them, the redundancy payment, even if more than the minimum, is not of main significance. For them, leaving a role where they have felt that they make a particular impact can be devastating.

There are ways by which charities can ensure that (1) they lessen the impact of the skills gap in their organisation and (2) they retain a close connection with a key supportive advocate of their charity and (3) they enable the individual to at least continue to feel that they are making a contribution to the impact that their charity makes.

Retaining staff as volunteers is one – although care should be taken that they are retained in other, volunteer designated, roles. After all, the reality is that the role has been made redundant. The individual may have been successful in finding employment elsewhere of course but by trying to ensure that the ex-employee maintains contact with the charity ensures a reliable advocate of the charity.

As with any organisation in any sector, this clearly depends upon the manner in which the redundancy exercise has been conducted. In our experience, it is difficult to get this right as far as the employee and employer is concerned – whilst the process and legalities followed may be spot on and without criticism, the reality is that neither party can ever really feel that the process has been conducted as they would wish – because neither party really would wish ever to have be in the position that they find themselves in.

As far as the person announcing the redundancies is concerned, that individual too can find the experience stressful. However, the leader of the organisation can make the process easier for all concerned – acknowledging the impact of redundancy on the individual, as well as the impact of the loss of the individual to the organisation, is important. A recent visit to a client found one of the staff in tears: ‘I went to call our IT helpline and Eric was not there. He has gone!’ Staff had not been told that Eric would be leaving and the shock hit some hard. Not just because the skills that Eric had had to help them with their own jobs had gone, but also because Eric had been an integral part of the pattern of their own daily lives. There would forever be a gap which was an emotional one, as well as a work-based one.

So, if making redundancies:

1. Plan for the skills gap. Ensure the skills needed to further the organisation’s strategic goals are present in some other guise and reassure that this will be the case.

2. Plan for the emotional gap. Warn people as appropriately as you can in advance. Allow people time to come to terms with what for many could be felt almost as a bereavement. Acknowledge that this is likely to be the case and that you understand that feeling.

3. Give people time to reflect on the past but then start to motivate and initiate for change – new plans, new ideas, a new future. A different one maybe, but one which will provide hope, focus and energy for those left behind.

4. Support those who have to fill the skills gap and ensure that the new teams that you will have to develop from scratch have the support that they need to become equally as effective as the old.

Whilst it can seem like 'the end', for many of those concerned, it could be just the beginning.

The future of Science certainly appears to be in safe hands!

The businesses that are fortunate enough to contain Firm Elite members also appear to have the right key people to create the competitive edge that all companies need to survive tougher economic times.............

A client rang me the other day. He was travelling with his own client, who was tweeting via the mobile phone. My client texted me to ask ‘What is this Twitter? What is my client saying?’. What my client really should have been asking himself was ‘If my client is tweeting, shouldn’t I be?’ And then he would have found himself asking ‘Who is my client talking to, if he is not talking to me?’... So, what leads me to criticise my own, and hugely beloved, client in this way?

I am not saying that the time honoured way by which business is done over a round of golf, a trip to the rugby, a 3 course meal at the most expensive of restaurants is out of fashion, nor even that it is unenjoyable, but...

Now that I am a twitter (or tweeter, or twit, or whatever) I am aware of how much businesses can grow via the tweetosphere (or twittosphere, or whatever). And that not (1) to be aware of its potential and (2) to give it a go (with care, of course) is to throw away the chance to make new contacts, gain new knowledge, develop new relationships and grow your own market base.

What have I learnt in particular? First, that charities and social entrepreneurs are using it to good advantage – for them. I do not have to search their websites for latest news – it comes direct to my mobile or my laptop or my PC – whichever suits me best. I am their supporter. I sign up to hear from them. Working with charities, at Firm Beliefs we have seen effective use of the supporter network by communicating directly with those who have signed up to follow the events, fortunes, and needs, of their chosen charity or enterprise. Within seconds, an appeal leads to responses.

Second, I know when TV stations need a good story – they ask for witnesses, contributors, ideas, ‘experts’ etc and again – their request comes direct to me. If they want an expert, I can usually alert a client or a contact to that need within minutes. (Unless of course they are already twitters in which case they are there straight away – gaining coverage).

Thirdly, developments in the world – they come to me now. And I can decide what I want to know about, when I want to know about it and via what medium I want to know about it. The time-honoured phrase ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’ is never more true than when listening to podcasts from all over the world, or communicating with individuals from all over the world.

I have just been talking to Chris Sherliker of Silverman Sherliker – a twitter like me (but so much more experienced and twitter wise!). (For those of you on Twitter, you can see him ‘in action’ on @London_Law_Firm – for a lesson in the effective use of limited time to communicate with others he cannot be bettered!) Like others (particularly Firm Eliters), he uses new forms of communication to connect with clients, friends, contacts and, ultimately, potential clients. Indeed, I have just recommended his services to a contact who is in need of legal advice. And he first came to my attention via Twitter. Naturally, I did my homework and checked the reputation of both him, and the firm. But the point is that I could have gone to any number of law firms to find an adviser for my contact but I did not. I chose him. I know what his firm does, what his approach to life and work is, what his likely quality of service is likely to be for my contact – and I learnt much of that via Twitter. I of course did not base my recommendation solely on the Twitter experience (I am sure there are many on Twitter whose persona is not quite what it seems!) but his firm did come into my sphere of knowledge at that point in time via Twitter.

Other law firms tweet. Some use it to publish latest news about legal issues (again, I don’t have to wait for the monthly newsletter, or search their site, along with a host of others, to gain an insight into what they are like in dealing with clients, in what areas of law they are leading the field etc ). Other law firms use it to publish information about their own events and organisational developments. For many, it is their chance to find out who is following them and, if they are clever, they will establish a sufficient relationship to start collecting valuable information about their clients, their potential clients and the perception of their own organisation. The point is that they are using Twitter to develop connections, meet the needs of those following them, establish their brand (or in some cases a different element to it) amongst a market place that is actively saying ‘we are here – tell us something about you!’. Individuals sign up to Twitter to follow others specifically to hear from them – in any business language that is a ‘gift’ to the organisation that wants a market to sit up and listen to their compelling offering... Of course there are those that just want to talk, and not listen, but they will go the way of all organisations who are not relationship driven...

Business is tough out there for law firms. As it is for charities. Charities know that if they are not talking to potential supporters via Twitter, other charities might be. They are harnessing the power of Twitter, Facebook, indeed any means of communication they can. Not to replace existing methods – but to enhance existing relationships and gain new ones by using other methods. As I so often say via my blog – the organisation that has little cash to spend on marketing has to find new ways to build connections and business – and many charities cannot be bettered; particularly when it comes to getting their stories heard by the media (http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/909616/Amnesty-targets-journalists-Twitter/4F1444E9A121F4C594C7D0F177FBA0BD/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin)

Another law firm client realised that it was losing clients – because it was not communicating with them. But it was not until we looked up the name of some of their main client individuals and client organisations, and searched for them on Twitter, that we found that many of the individuals were ‘tweeting’ with individuals at competing firms. Whether that was about golf, rugby, work or TV or matters developing in countries far far away, it mattered not. There was a risk that relationships between like minded individuals would develop and that, at some point given the right timing, work might flow between them.

Put in to the search engine at Twitter what you do - so, for example, enter 'law firm management' or 'charity trustee training' (in the Firm Beliefs case). Or put in the name of your clients or their industry area. Put in your own name and see if you or your organisation are mentioned. Find out who your clients and contacts are following... What do you find? A network of people and communicators of which you are not a part?

So, by all means, carry on with your golf days, your dinners with clients, your trips to the rugby etc – but do not miss out on new ways of doing business. The world of business, particularly the law and the third sector, is changing, has changed and will change. Unless we harness the potential of the new, we may as well pack up and go home now. Because the Twitter world which demands ‘tell us what you are doing right now’ won’t wait for us to catch up.

Join us for an evening with Graham Neale of Killik Asset Management on Tuesday 14th July. (If you are new to Firm Elite, you can find out more here.)

We are lucky to capture Graham for an evening event as he is normally associated with early mornings - regular listeners to the Today programme on Radio 4 will be aware of his words of wisdom at unearthly hours of the morning. For those of you linked in to Radio 2's Wake up with Wogan, we feel you should try Radio 4's Get up to Graham...

Known for his love of the drama of the financial markets, and for his ability to explain clearly why we should not have invested in such and such a stock, Graham will take us through what it is that makes a good, reliable, trustworthy (and yes, exciting) report on the state of the markets. Bombarded as we are with conflicting and often dull forecasts for the future of the markets and the world economy, he will show us what we should be looking for and what should we be doing (for ourselves and our clients) to take advantage of the undoubted opportunities for investment that exist at the moment.

We leave you with this quote from Will Rogers: 'Money and women are the most sought after, and the least known about of any two things that we have' We hope that Graham will help to perhaps give us a little more insight into the world of money, although if he can also elucidate in the matter of women, I am sure some guests won't mind a bit! You will never look at a market report in the same way again (nor for that matter at anybody wearing red braces...)

Contact: sally@firmbeliefs.co.uk for further information.

My particular interest lies with law firms and other professional services organizations and, from what I see, most small and medium sized firms need more work coming through the doors today. Thinking of prestige events that will deliver new client faces and potential business next year and the year after is a ‘nice to do' not a ‘must do'. I guess too many marketers have only known the good times of the last decade where there was money to do fascinating things.

‘Investment' in marketing has always really been about two things - money and time - not just budget. Sadly, lots of firms have not overtly recognised the latter.

So where are we now? A quick recap of what is driving any sensible firm and its management is: profits are going down because of lower fee income; lower fee income is because less work is coming in; to prop up profits (aka partner ‘salaries') means reducing spend wherever possible (i.e. marketing budgets down); less work coming in means more lawyer time available for doing something else (i.e. more marketing). So there is still a lot of investment available but the balance has changed substantially - less money and much more time. The time element is almost all to do with the time of lawyers not marketers.

How often have we heard the phrases ‘people buy people' and ‘personal relationships are at the heart of professional services marketing'? Or variations on these themes. So, taking this to heart and with little budget and more available time means that, for now at least, it is the lawyers who are the primary marketers. But that's how it should be anyway.

Pretty much any firm's incoming work in the short term - the next six and twelve months - comes from the pipeline of contacts and clients who already know the firm and its lawyers (but maybe not as well or as many as they should). The pipeline for longer term work - one and two years into the future - is through supplementing these with marketing activities involving prospective contacts and clients who do not yet know the firm. The short term pipeline brings work in fastest and in the current climate this has to be the primary focus. In fact the bigger the profits gap the heavier must be the focus on the short term pipeline. Fortunately the marketing activities that work here generally don't have to cost much but do require investing time, care and thought.

So what activities should be focused on? Well, besides ‘going the extra mile' on current work with clients it is about regular contact, listening and helping them with their own search for business. Any checklist will include introducing contacts to other partners with different specialisms to your own, volunteering to attend client's own internal meetings, seminars for their staff, introducing them to your other business contacts etc. A full checklist of course comes under the heading of consultancy not a blog!! There are two increasingly important aspects that must be factored in too:

• Social networking is increasingly valuable and, if the firms that Firm Beliefs are working with are anything to go by, an area that cannot afford to be ignored - even if it is just by way of a watching brief for the moment until the real potential becomes clear for each firm.

• ‘E-marketing' is a rare modern development - provides a valuable role and saves a lot off the budget. ‘E-marketing'? The trouble is that it sounds very techie, complicated and expensive (well that was my reaction). The worst thing that happened was for it to be labeled ‘e-marketing' because the phrase alone switches many people off. Sending an e-mail is a nil marginal cost - we all do it all the time. Compare that to printing an information sheet, market advice leaflet or event invitation before paying for it to be stuffed in an envelope, labeled and posted. The trick is to include your information in the e-mail as a web style image (‘html') so that it looks very professional (as per Firm Belief's approach). Having saved a lot of money, it is well worth the small cost of using a web mailshot company to send the email as they can really improve your hit-rate and contact database each time.

To the argument that not all clients and contacts are on e-mail? - John McEnroe (‘you can't be serious'). This is 2009 and anyone worth having as a client (i.e. has any money) is on e-mail and that includes my 87-year old father in law (a Private Client prospect!).

What this does of course is to significantly change the focus of your marketing staffing needs. Far less big event organization, press and brochure/printing administration. Far more coaching and action plan encouragement; idea stimulation and client contact accompaniment. Less need for junior marketing staff and more need for a senior experienced business development input (many large firms are now rightly using the role title of business development to describe their staff doing this). Many firms haven't got this balance right.

There are a lot of firms for whom this is all old hat, they've been doing it for years. Interestingly they are usually successful firms. Those who focus on this now will do best in this recession and prosper in the upturn in a couple of years or so. Those who don't - well, will they survive the recession? Even if they do then they will be left well behind in the quality of work and profits stakes later. And they will find themselves being judged as unattractive by good lawyers when they start wanting to take people on again to grow the firm or deal with succession issues.

Gareth Mason (Guest Blogger and member of Firm Elite)

Frequently we find our law firm clients, and our charity clients, having to answer questions (often on behalf of their own clients or charity stakeholders) which end up somewhere on a social media site, whizzed around the globe in the tweet of a keypad! For lawyers and for those in the not for profit sectors handling the media is a growing skill.

A few days' later, as I was playacting my response to a reporter, in front of a mirror (as you do!) regular Firm Eliter, Andrew Caesar-Gordon, of Electric Airwaves, furnished me with some tips:

1. Get your key message in right at the top of the interview (few in the online community will want to watch the broadcast for more than a few minutes)
2. Use the bridging technique to communicate to the audience what you want to communicate in a credible and engaging way
3. Address the camera as appropriate (make sure it is placed favourably just as you would if being interviewed for television) since that is what will be seen by the audience on line

If its an 'ambush interview', remember the following:

1. If unexpectedly confronted by television cameras or microphones, politely ask that they switch off the recording equipment so you can discuss the nature of the interview. This allows you to decide whether to do it or not and gives you time to formulate a response if you do.
2. You probably do need to comment since the issue is important enough for them to doorstep you. But your response will depend upon what you know about the issue and your authority to speak. Unless you have the facts and your organisation's 'line to take' to hand, you probably want to buy time and get out with your reputation intact.
3. So say 'I can give you a short statement/I have time for one question but then I must leave to manage the situation/get to my meeting on time and so cannot take any further questions'. Do so and leave.
4. If you do not know enough about the issue, use the bridging technique. Address or acknowledge the issue, using a bridging phrase (e.g. 'I am not the person to answer that but I can tell you who is' or 'You wouldn't expect me to comment without having all the facts but what I can say is' or 'This is neither the time nor the place for that discussion... the issue/problem/situation is...' ), deliver a positive message about your/charity's/client's organisational safety record or product or service etc then leave.
5. The audience will credit you with responding to the legitimate concern of the journalist, the independent verifier of truth on behalf of the audience. It ensures that you do not appear to be hiding from the media. You can legitimately not answer any further questions because you told them up front that you would not and you gave a sound reason why not.

So I am much the wiser. And spend even more time in front of mirrors now, practising for my You Tube moment. That means that when Andrew returns to furnish his fellow Firm Eliters with yet more engaging tips (and stories) on 17th November over dinner, I will be ready to respond in front of any camera he chooses to bring along!

Cynicism seems to pervade the minds of many today – be that cynicism regarding the state of the economy, the workings of the financial sector or, even, the bona fides of those who comment upon the state of the economy or the markets – why do they do it, for whose good is it, whose interests do they really have in mind? So what Firm Eliters wanted to know was – who should we listen to when it comes to predicting the state of the markets and what should we be looking for in a reliable commentator? We asked Graham Neale Managing Director of Killik Asset Management.

Firm Eliters were treated, over dinner, to an engaging analysis of the world of financial commentators. Graham explained the whys, the whos, the hows, and the whens, and the wheres of the world of market commentary. Who are the key individuals that he respects, why certain individuals comment on the markets, the routes they use to get to those listening, and the advantages and pitfalls of so doing. Graham talked of his own experiences as commentator on the Today programme and other media. Graham also talked openly and honestly about the world of financial investment and managing portfolios.

This generated an evening’s discussion regarding risk, trust, ethics, accountability. Not content with just that, guests debated over new and old methods of communication, networking, establishing relationships, brand protection, reputational risk. Particularly interesting was the discussion regarding the need to build relationships of trust between press and commentators and those who are the subject of the commentary. Guests were educated and stimulated by Graham’s talk, discussion followed passionately and, as usual, views were exchanged, experiences described, questions were asked, answers debated.

As one guest said ‘if we had left the nation’s money in the hands of Graham, we might not be in the state we are in today.’ So if you or your clients are seeking trust, accountability, financial skill, even, dare we say, a return that reflects that little hint of excitement and passion that bubbles within the financial markets, you are unlikely to go wrong with Graham...

So you need to do something quite basic... communicate with them. We are pleased when we see a ‘stakeholder communication plan’ in any organisation. But it is usually a document with no backbone and no implementation in reality. And the larger the organisation, the less effective we find the comms plan to be! So we look for evidence of sustainable relationships, based on effective communication. So what do we look for?

Organisations must ensure that they:

1. identify who their stakeholders are
2. ascertain those stakeholders’ potential to either block, undermine or support the progress of their strategy.
3. identify methods of ensuring support from all and then the continuation of that support
4. have a plan which provides for continual, appropriate, communication.

We find that most organisations fail at the first hurdle – who are your stakeholders? If you have not identified them, how can you communicate with them? Most organisations will easily identify their clients/customers and the potential ones. They might even identify their staff as being stakeholders. But rarely do they identify their suppliers, their contacts and multipliers, their shareholders, their trustees, the government, the lawmakers, the international influencers, your competitors... (And not just those who already are but also those who could be. And remember you do not choose your competitors, others do!) So they may be individuals or organisations that you have not even contemplated hitherto – who are not even on your radar yet.

So your starting point has to be a very simple question – who are those organisations/groups/individuals that you need to make your organisation a success (as identified by your strategic vision and goals)? In other words, who has the power to make you or break you?

Once you have identified them, you need to rate them according to the level of threat they may present to you. Consider who will present you with fewest problems, those who are unpredictable but manageable in terms of how they can affect you, those who are powerful but actually fairly predictable, and then those who pose the greatest danger or indeed provide you with the greatest opportunities. Stakeholders pose different problems and opportunities. So each needs to be identified separately according to risk and opportunity.

Then – how are you going to keep them on board – how will you communicate with them? Who will take minimum effort, who needs to be kept informed, which just need to be kept satisfied about your future plans, and who will be the key players. And remember that communication is a two way exercise – how will you find out about their plans which might impact upon yours?

We hear much talk about ‘communications strategy’ and many resources (human and electronic and financial) are put that way. But unless you get the basics right, you are wasting resources and the chances of your strategic plans going awry increase.

So what would you think if one of your staff said 'Ooh no, Twitter/LinkedIn/Facebook/Latest Invention is not for me/my organisation'. We approach that response in two ways:

1. Has the individual assessed the opportunity and the risk of different methods of communication? If the individual has not made any attempt to assess the opportunities and risks - has not even tried to find out about latest innovations in communication, or even tried out the latest offerings, we wonder what value that individual can add to the future of the organisation, appearing to make a value judgement based on lack of research.

2. If they say they have, we then say 'if not of value to you, might it be of value to your customers and therefore to your competitors?' Frequently, the research undertaken regarding new methods of communication is based on assessment of the organisation's ability to manage and adapt to it, not the needs of the various stakeholders... The starting point has to be to assess the value to an organisation's stakeholders of that organisation adopting innovative methods of communication,

What has surprised us is that many law or other professional firm owners or charity trustees or not for profit managers - ie the leaders of organisations - are the ones who appear to be unwilling to run pilot schemes testing out new technologies, who appear even to be unaware of latest technologies - not their employees. Whereas it is their employees who regularly use Facebook, Twitter etc - a sign of early adopters, trend testers, innovation enquirers. There is untapped knowledge and experience within those employees - employers and leaders need to untap it, to capture it. They will not do so if they are not even alive to the existence of some of these latest technologies.

Not all technologies are of value to every organisation's stakeholders, and therefore not all technologies will be of value to every organisation. But unless the leaders of those organisations make themselves aware of what is out there, identify opportunities that might be of strategic benefit, test those latest developments, then they cannot expect to maintain the ability to meet stakeholders' needs. Innovation is key to the future. Both law firms and charities are facing hitherto unprecedented challenges to their existing markets - if they are to harness innovation to ensure continued survival, they need to ensure their minds are open to the potential from the innovations already around them.

So make sure it is not you, the leader of an organisation, holding your organisation back...

For it comes from the expression pro bono publico - for the public good. That is in theory why lawyers have traditionally underaken such work. Many moons ago, lawyers were at the forefront of making a difference to society. To this day there are still those who firmly believe that that is their role. And there are also those who still believe that but see that the professional world within which they work does not allow for that. So any pro bono initiatives they undertake, tend to be done with misgivings about their ability to do it well.

It is not just lawyers of course. Increasingly we see consultancies, surveyors, accountants - all manner of businesses and organisations - doing so. And we find that they tend to 'do pro bono' a little better. But not hugely so. Here at Firm Beliefs, we provide our consultancy services free to one charity every year. And we encourage not just our law firm clients to do so, but also the executives in our larger charity clients.

There are numerous organisations dedicated to this activity: www.lawworks.org being one (and Rebecca Hilsenrath will be talking at our next Firm Elite dinner). www.probono.net, www.adviceuk.org.uk, www.barprobono.org.uk, the list goes on. There are various initiatives, the latest being RollOnFriday Community Action a joint venture between RollOnFriday, LawWorks, the Law Society, and 25 international law firms. Individuals who have lost their jobs could see themselves with a guaranteed interview after a number of pro bono hours. The International Bar Associaton has approved a Pro Bono Declaration and launched a site publicising this latest initiative across the global community of law firms.

So there are those who do pro bono, those who don't. Those who do it well, those who don't.

But we are also seeing some good, planned, initiatives. Here are some reasons that might resonate with your organisation's objectives:

1. Some firms are arranging for those who have been made redundant to join pro bono initiatives as part of their responsibility for their departing staff. This provides the lawyer with the means to continue to use, and indeed to develop, their skills. For many, it also provides them with the opportunity to rethink their career goals.

2. Other firms are arranging for those whose hours have been reduced to spend time undertaking pro bono work. Again, their lawyers maintain and develop their skills. It often leads to long standing relationships with others in the receiving organisations or the individuals being advised which are proving usual in many ways, not least in expanding the networks of the individual lawyers and of the firm. These programmes however must be managed - and managed so that neither paying nor non-paying clients feel that their interests are secondary to the other.

3. Those firms who have delayed the start date of their new trainees, or who have offered 'long term sabbaticals' to existing employees, are finding that placing them in pro bono projects means that they are retaining the talent which they will most certainly continue to need.

A number of tips for those of you considering using the pro bono initiatives:

1. What do you mean by pro bono? For many firms, when they publicise their 'pro bono' initiatives, they tend to roll them up into CSR initiatives. It is not the place of this blog to illustrate the differences between corporate social responsibility, corporate responsibility, social impact etc etc. Suffice it to say that, for many of those seeking pro bono services, they expect legal advice. Do not offer them painting and decorating services... No matter how much you want your staff to make a social impact. Match what is needed with what you can offer.

2. Try to control and manage the process of finding, placing and monitoring the projects - individuals providing pro bono advice using their own initiative can often waste an opportunity for your firm to maximise its own, and its clients', preferred and established skills and markets for those skills. If you do not have the resources or experience to do that (and let's face it, many lawyers are awful project managers and if they have such expertise inhouse they rarely rely on it!), then,

3. Outsource the process - to organisations that offer such services. They are generally better at (1) locating projects to suit the firm's own values, experience and infrastructure and (2) energising and communicating with the firm's lawyers in order to generate interest and buy-in and (3) managing the relationship between all those concerned. If you don't manage the process, the expectations and the experience, then the return on your investment in your energy and time, and the needs of the service receiver, will not be met.

4. Ensure that this will be a long term part of your business strategy. Such initiatives have a habit of disappearing 'when real paid work comes back'.... Those organisations and sectors that suffer as a result of this, and the individuals within them, do not forget this. 'Only for as long as it suits us' law firms tend to be marked... We cannot tell you the number of organisations that have 'blacklisted' law firms that have not treated the receivers of their pro bono services as well as they might. Think of the impact of your reputation if you are not giving this the focus it deserves.

5. If you are a private practice firm, try to engage with in-house law departments that are known to you. They may well be looking to place their own lawyers in pro bono initiatives, but without the support and experience to do so. We are seeing some good joint initiatives occurring which are beneficial to all concerned.

6. Do not just allow any old lawyer to do pro bono! You are providing a value to the community. That is still a commodity - you may not be selling it for fees but you are still providing a service that has a value. Interview your staff for the project, ensure they have the skills, choose wisely, manage the expectations of your staff and the receiver of the service - treat it like any other client matter.

6. Ensure your insurance covers you and your staff for the project.

7. Watch for conflict situations.

8. Ensure that the lawyers' time is credited as being 'of value' (and we hope that there are very few firms out there that still see 'value' as only being 'billable'...)

I could go on. But I shan't!

My suggestion if you are reading this and are interested in finding out more about pro bono would be to apply to come to our next Firm Elite dinner or to contact us at Firm Beliefs, or indeed any of the organisations mentioned that manage pro bono initiatives.

For those of us operating in the legal and financial services sectors, and even the not for profit sector, we hear much at the moment about lack of meaning that individuals feel they gain from their roles. Frequently we hear of individuals leaving their jobs, even their careers, to 'find greater social meaning' elsewhere. It is clear that individuals are increasingly feeling disconnected from the impact that their role can make in society. (One of the reasons that some of us have set up Interconnecting for Impact Ltd).

And yet, it is often the blindness of the organisation and the individual that leads to this disconnect. The impact is there to be had, if only we could see it.

This was brought home to me yesterday when I attended the Lexis Nexis Money Laundering, Fraud and Financial Crime conference in London. Firm Beliefs provides pro bono advice to Stop the Traffik, a charity aiming to stop the crime of human trafficking - or at least make a very large dent in it. It had been invited to contribute a session on the crime of human trafficking. I attended, along with Ruth Dearnley and Steve Chalke of Stop the Traffik and Jason Haines of Huntswood, also a pro bono advisor to the charity. Together we have begun to ask a series of questions of both the charity and the financial sector itself - what role can the financial sector play in combatting the crime.

Watching the body language of the delegates as Steve began to talk was interesting. One delegate had already described the conference so far as 'intellectually useful but same old, same old'. And the body language supported that. Arms folded, pens at the doodle ready, the look of 'make me interested, punk' on their faces. And yet, within 10 minutes, Steve had everybody engaged. As he told the story of 5 and 7 year old siblings in Mumbai who had begun to attend school there, their eyes full of life and fire, the delegates' body language changed. Attention was focused. And as Steve told of the disappearance of the two children, the quest to find them, the realisation that their father had sold them to fund his drink habit, and that they, like so many other children, have never been heard of again, even the most ardent doodler stopped. As Jason repeated much of the terminology that delegates had already heard that morning, outlining the global, national and community regulations, law and administrative procedures that pervade the lives of these delegates when it comes to money laundering, suddenly one could see the penny dropping. Each tick on a tick sheet of money laundering obligations, each definition used in the latest legislation, is there to achieve an impact. And each delegate in implementing their roles, is helping to achieve that impact. And that impact comes in the form of one less child trafficked, one more child saved.

I do not know how many of the delegates slept last night without imagining their own children caught up in a trafficking system which exists within our own geographical boundaries. What I do know is that many business cards were left in response to our request to do so if delegates wanted to know more about what Stop the Traffik is doing and what they as individuals can do.

There is a wider issue here - as organisations you begin your usual round of strategic reviews, you too should ensure that you know what your aims are, the impact you seek to make. And you need to ensure that every individual knows how they can assist and drive the organisation in achieving that impact. And as individuals, rather than looking elsewhere to find meaning in your role, try looking at the role you have.

Stop the Traffik aims to empower the world to make a difference. How do you aim to empower your organisation's stakeholders? Where will you find the meaning in the role that you have?

It is always a real privilege to meet new and old Firm Eliters, to discuss and debate new and old ideas, to learn something about myself, my organisation, other people, other sectors, other organisations. And I always come away wanting to do something new or try doing something differently - always as a result of the impact somebody else and their views or ideas made upon me. If last night's discussion was like having riches, then I have all the wealth in the world.

We were very prvileged to have as our speaker Rebecca Hilsenrath of Law Works. It never ceases to amaze me that individuals who play such a key role in their own organisations are willing, at the end of a long day, to come and tell others about what they do and to provide insight. What is even more valuable is that they allow their own story to be hijacked and developed, usually out of all recognition, by fellow guests who question, introduce new concepts, test out ideas etc.

We learnt much about the legal profession's attitude towards pro bono. And, for those of us who are ex-lawyers, as well as those who still are, a sense of pride must have developed for there are few, if any, other professions or trade who, as a sector, take the provision of valuable service and product for nothing, so seriously. We all too often underestimate the value that the profession as a whole brings to society and last night we realised that we underestimate the value that Law Works adds to the profession in enabling pro bono to operate in the efficient and effective way that it does.

It was simply a matter of time before the conversation turned to concepts such as social impact, ethical responsibility, conflicts and challenges to be found in deciding who makes a positive impact on society and in the serving of society by both individuals and organisations. What is the value of reputation management and does it matter the reason for an individual or organisation's contribution to society or a project? How does one meet the needs of younger generations in an organisation which purports to provide the chance to make an impact and then does not? Where does the ability lie in an organisation to drive forward corporate inititatives which make a difference to society? Unanswered questions still remain.

Guests were handpicked as usual from a list of those who had expressed an interest in coming, so that we had a number of different perspectives from lawyers, individuals working in the third sector, those with particular skills in individual and organisational development and leadership, as well as the contribution of those interested in and specialist in reputation management. Every angle was different, every contribution added to the gaining of insight into a number of concepts.

And it is not all about round table discussion. Some of the best discussions that take place at dinners are 1:1. Now they may relate to business, they may not! The point is that common views and experiences, as well as different ones, are of great value to individuals today. The discussion of the personal, the celebrity, the weather, past lives, children, dogs, haircuts, wine, chefs, profits, business ideas, mutual contacts... all these add to the mix.

So, on this occasion, pro bono (or rather the discussion of it) lead to huge wealth for all concerned. Our thanks to Rebecca and all guests for a great evening.

An invitation to deliver a talk to the Norfolk and Norwich Law Society saw me return to the place where I had practised as both articled clerk (or trainee for anybody under the age of about 40) and solicitor. There, in front of me, sat Matthew Arrowsmith Brown (ex partner at Mills and Reeve, now a business coach), Rachel Higgs (partner at Mills and Reeve), Tim Chiverton (now a partner at Hansells and who, in 1990 had had the responsibility of teaching me something about commercial property), and Sian Carrel, now a partner at Greenland Houchen, but who had once shared with me the burden of being the least qualified in the litigation team headed up by Rachel. No pressure then!

The remaining members of the group comprised about 15 solicitors from different sizes of practice, different models of practice, with differing focus in terms of market sectors, and with differing views on the future of the legal profession. Once upon a time, full and frank discussion amongst these diverse individuals may have been inappropriate - Norfolk is a small place and most law firms would see themselves competing against each other for possibly a dwindling market for legal services. The reality of course, now and in the future, is that competition for the provision of legal services comes from we know not where yet. The internet has already made inroads into traditional methods of clients obtaining both information and advice. Different business structures and models from the traditional partnership and LLP structure will soon be available. And different types of youngsters are coming into the profession,expecting to work and be rewarded in ways that many of us are simply not expecting. They may not even wish to work in a traditional partnership based organisation.

The discussion centred upon the need to run ourselves as businesses. Readers of this blog may care to download the powerpoint slides of the discussion (prepared AFTER the evening - death by powerpoint not really being my mode of delivery of debate and discussion) available here.

But what was most interesting to me was the assumption that simply because a business is a one man band rather than a large corporate entity, or vice versa, that the methods of assessing the health of that organisation differ. Take Mills and Reeve for example - large, 'corporate'. Compare them with Tessa Shepperson of LandlordLaw. Using the joined up management model (available on our resources page as a document to download), it becomes clear that both Mills and Reeve and LandlordLaw have a great deal in common. The point of that model is that it is the functions that must be present, regardless of how many or few individuals there are holding responsibility for those functions. The one man band must assess the effectiveness of the organisation to manage and develop people, clients, finance and IT/operations. And the one man band must consider short term, medium term and long term issues. Just as the large corporate must. The large corporate may have different individuals in each of those parts of the business but the functions those individuals are charged with managing are just as for the large corporate.

And this brings us to the point of this (somewhat long) blog! If the world is about to change for your organisation and indeed for your profession, you need to very very aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your organisation going into that change. And your organisation is made up of those functions. It is pointless seizing on a brave new world, with new markets and opportunities, if you are simply unable to deliver on that strategy because of internal weaknesses. Assess the functions - measure the effectiveness of those functions over short, medium and long term. They are present in your organisation, regardless of your size.

And even regardless of your sector. What we find here at Firm Beliefs is a lack of awareness of just what business functions there are in an organisation. And that includes charities who tend (sweeping generalisation coming up) to (a) avoid the use of the word 'business' so we use the word 'organisation' function.. and (b) do not recognise anything other than 'trustees do this' and 'the management do something else' and 'volunteers do everything else'. Yes at least they are aware of the presence of some of their stakeholders, but charity management needs to become far more aware of what functions there are in order to ensure effectiveness. Charities too face hitherto unimaginable competition (for funding, for stakeholder support, for the ability to 'make a difference' from social enterprises.

So, when arranging your next strategic review or awayday, you need to ensure that you are aware of which functions you will be calling upon to help you deliver on the goals that will see you effective and successful in your brave new world. Regardless of your size...

A question I asked delegates at a recent conference. At Firm Beliefs, our two main client sectors are facing this question on a daily basis.

Charities are not the only organisations that make a social impact. Profit making organisations seek to do so as well - not least because of the recent development of 'social enteprises' as service and product deliverers to the same stakeholders as charities. Charities no longer have a monopoly on 'doing good'. They now have to compete with other organisations for income in a way hitherto not experienced.

Law firms are not the only organisations that seek to provide legal services. Non law firms and non lawyers seek to do so as well - the market for the provision of legal services is no longer open only to law firms.

For both these sectors, it is no longer sufficient to take last year's business plan and 'tweak it' for the future. Every year, a fresh look needs to be taken at the organisation. By all means review last year's plan BUT it must be done on the understanding that those doing so are happy that the organisation still has a purpose, a value to provide to its stakeholders.

So allow yourself, during the next AwayDay that your organisation has, time for the 'blank piece of paper' exercise. If you cannot justify, with evidence..., on one side of A4 why your organisation still has a purpose, given the competition it faces, then perhaps it is time to review what you can do to give it a different purpose, or indeed whether it is time to leave the market place to those who have found that purpose.

Two miles away Giles, CEO of a major law firm, sat in a 5 star hotel conference room, listening to a report by head of litigation about how well the department had been doing, using figures the provenance of which he did not recognise, talking in a false tone of over-excitement (having been on a presentation skills course the previous week...). Compounding matters, Giles had a hangover, a result of too many whiskies the night before listening to a junior partner regaling him with the worries of a collection of junior partners about the future of the firm. Like Martin, Giles doubted that the partners of the firm would be pleased when they saw the bill for the away day. Just like last year.

This year, for both men, the success of the strategic retreats would be more important than before. Both sectors were facing particular competition from other providers of the same services. Never before had an awayday had such significance and needed such positive outcomes. And yet, each knew that such few positive outcomes as there were likely to be from the retreat, would be lost in the usual intertia which followed the events when all returned to their offices. How had each man found himself, yet again, facing endless activities and discussions which would lead to the usual outcome – money out, impact nil...

We encounter numerous Martins and Giles. We have to pick up the pieces, when designing and facilitating such retreats, left from previous years’ amateur approach to such events.

1. WHY is the retreat happening? And WHAT is expected from the retreat? Think of both the stated objectives (ie those which aim to be part of achieving some or all of the goals of the organisation) and those which are unstated (usually political – let’s just see if we can get Henry and Harriet to sit next to each other for half an hour without them bickering).

2. Have we designed the events and discussion so that there is a good mixture of ANALYSIS about the organisation’s performance bearing in mind the threats from others, CREATIVITY about how some of the aims can be achieved (innovative ideas often come to the fore at such events) and social ENGAGEMENT between those attending, to break down barriers.

3. Have we drawn up an adequate attendance list? If you need all to achieve an objective, INVITE ALL THOSE WHO ARE KEY TO ITS ACHIEVEMENT. People tend not to implement or take part in solutions that they feel they have not had a say in...

4. Have we each done enough PREPARATION? As a rule of thumb, each person attending should have a contribution to make at the event, which should entail at least the same time in terms of preparation as the event itself...

5. Have we designed discussions and activities that will ensure PARTICIPATION BY ALL?

6. Will each outcome include an element of PRODUCTIVITY, AND PROFITABILITY, AND INNOVATION LEADING TO EFFECTIVE CHANGE?

7. Have we decided what we need to measure in terms of IMPACT FROM THE RETREAT and identified how we will measure those outcomes, who will be responsible for delivering on the outcomes and the implications if they do not? Have we alerted those individuals to the results expected BEFORE the retreat, so that they will engage with every element of the retreat?

8. What timescales will we have for measuring the expected outcomes from the retreat? Who will be responsible next year for reporting on the success, or otherwise, of the retreat in terms of ROI?

Think clearly before you embark on such a retreat. They are necessary. Decide how you will make them effective. Avoid being a Martin or a Giles.

Thankfully, for guests at our latest Firm Elite dinner, how to avoid distortion by others, or preferably how to ensure any distortion is done by ourselves, was discussed with the guidance of Andrew Caesar-Gordon who returned as a dinner guest. Generous as always with his time and expertise, Andrew provided guests with the same humorous and innovative approach to handling of the media as he does for those who undertake Electric Airwaves' well-regarded training courses.

Analysis of poor and good media handling (with examples courtesy of snippets from media sources) took place over 3 courses and (much) wine, the basic tools of handling the media (TRUTH) were imparted to us, and a broad ranging conversation (as usual) took place, courtesy of our multi-sectored and multi-talented guests.

Guests are invited because of their insight into tomorrow's world and their enquiring minds and not because of their hierarchical positions in organisations. But some come from organisations where new thinking can be found and our dinner that evening was privileged to have individuals from ACEVO (Liam Cranley and Richard McKelvey), Institute for Philanthropy (Musa Okwonga), Schillings (Jenny Afia), Norton Rose (John Wood), the Fifth Business Experience (Ken Cohen) as well as entrepreneurs who work for themselves such as Simon Card OBE (who kindly co hosted with Sara Dixon) and William Bale.

As I said, guests at Firm Elite dinners are chosen for their insight, intelligence and active minds, always willing to learn something new. And guests that night were no exception.

Observing those attending the Diana Award 10th Anniversary event at number 11 Downing Street recently, the realisation that not everybody finds everybody else interesting hit me. The Diana Award was set up to inspire youngsters to do good in the world, something for their community, for others. And to talk with some of the 10 awardholders that evening was a humbling experience. Sadly, one of the awards was posthumous. These young men and women had each, often despite personal constraints on themselves, made a huge impact in their communities, nationally and internationally. They were energetic, engaging and, surrounded by the 'great and the good' (the Chancellor and Mrs Darling, Sarah Brown, Robin Gibb etc) and the press, showed a confidence, an energy and buckets of humility that many could learn from. Yet, I watched an encounter between one of the guests and the mother of one of the award holders. The guest, rather than taking the chance to chat to the mother, simply said 'Excuse me, I must just catch Sarah [Brown]' and walked away. I am not saying that he would have found the mother boring (she most certainly was not), but more that he suspected he might. Or perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he did not know how to talk to her. What is clear is that he missed the chance to talk to a woman adept at steering her daughter through the trials and hardships of her young life to reach a stage where she is making more of a contribution than many adults with no such constraints. And whilst Sarah Brown may have been 'useful' to him in terms of contacts, one has to wonder at what he missed in talking to the very interesting mother of the Award holder.

Attending another such event at Killik, for the Cure Parkinson's Trust, I observed a constant chatter and movement between all the indviduals there. Clearly very well managed as always by Jer and Graham of Killik. What struck me was how interested in each other all the guests were. Conversations were two way. I asked a number of the guests whether they had learnt more about the Trust as a result. All answered yes but many added 'and about other people as well'. And of course the excellent communication skills of 'Phantom of the Opera' Tom showed us all that regardless of physical constraints, humour, wit, intelligence and charm lie within us all.

Many of our clients often say, particularly the lawyers, 'we don't know how to enter a room and engage with others in that room if they are not lawyers'. And increasingly we hear 'it is so boring. All we hear about are their trials and tribulations in the current economic climate.' or 'people always say we lawyers are boring to talk to so why bother?' There are a myriad of 'networking courses for lawyers' which purport to help them with their networking. We tell them that, ultimately, in a world such as ours today, everybody has a past, everyone has hopes for the future, people have ideas, views, opinions, experiences. If we fear talking to the person opposite about ourselves because we are worried they will find us boring - they will. If we fear talking to the person opposite about themselves because we are worried we will find them boring - we miss a chance. A big chance. To learn from others. Start with talking to them about themselves, and the rest will follow.

As a foreign office child, I was taught to 'work a room'. It can be taught, yes. But what can only be learned by experience, by seeing everybody as an interesting individual, is that networking, contacts, meeting new people are what the world of today and tomorrow is all about. Whether for professional or personal purposes, taking the chance to chat to somebody new means that life, and therefore we ourselves, will never be boring.

Yet, by the end of the evening, it was all rather a bit 'have you got any money? Can you fund us this that or the other?' and sadly very much 'I am not interested in you or your contacts unless you can give us some cash'. All the good aims and intentions went out of the window.

At the EAPG event (European Association for Philanthropic Giving), which had some very interesting and innovative individuals attending (as always it seems) to discuss A Very Long Engagement? Perspectives on cultivating, engaging and stewarding major donors and philanthropists in a challenging financial climate, a similar move away from best intentions emerged. Some interesting ideas were presented by the panel - yet, each of whom was already from within the third sector. The only non-sector voices heard were from a lawyer who bravely acknowledged the inability of most lawyers to engage with the sector and the benefits to their clients of doing so. Yet EAPG often hosts some excellent events which brings together many from outside the third sector. On this occasion, it was a wasted opportunity to hear from the donors themselves as well as those who work with them. It was carefully faciliated and discussion and debate did not really flow possibly as a result. Perhaps that is why those from outside the sector who were there did not speak.

There are some excellent organisations out there such as Legatum and the EAPG trying to bridge the gap between sector specific organisations and individuals. But until the third sector organisations and indviduals themselves see the benefits of opening their minds to new ways, organisations like Legatum and EAPG will find it tough and slow going. And so will those sectors who together can make a social impact.

The first dinner of the new year is always reserved for those who have been before. Guests are encouraged to share their plans for 2010 with fellow guests so that ideas, experiences and support can be shared over the coming year.

Secondly, Simon Card OBE, chairman of ambassadors to Merlin, has asked that if fellow Eliters want to help the general situation in Haiti by donating funds, they visit the Merlin website where a campaign has been launched.

As at the time of this news item, clients and Firm Eliters are on the case with huge efforts being made by both them, their organisations and their own contacts. Many thanks.

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.

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?!

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

• 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

(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...

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.

We all share a passion for building networks and creating sustainable and collaborative relationships and our dinners serve as a dynamic forum for discussion.

Firm Elite meet every couple of months for dinner, when we exchange ideas and discuss specific topics. Last night, my first since joining the board, the topic was London, the status quo and future of this great city.

The location for this dinner was the Caledonian Club. It did not disappoint from the second I crossed the threshold: I was first to arrive, and have never encountered a more Scottish person at reception. I would imagine his name is Jock and I will forever remember him in full highland dress. I forget now whether he was or not. The dining room is beautiful, with some excellent watercolours of highland landscapes adorning the spaces between the bookshelves that contained leather bound, dusty volumes of Robert Burns, Almanacs of Scottish Antiquities, and the occasional Dickens.

Over some drinks, we mingled and briefly discussed the topic for the night and future events. We sat down to a delicious Roquefort tart, followed by lamb. As the wine was poured and we got to know our neighbours, the topic of the evening was formally introduced by our co-host, Kehrela Hodkinson of the Hodkinson Law Group.

Benjamin Disraeli said that "London is a roost for every bird", and while this statement carries a great deal of significance, one could suggest some birds are flocking here, while others are flying south in search of more hospitable climes. Why is this happening and what does the future hold? At this point of the evening I was sure that none of us we be much closer to answering these questions by the end of the evening. However, I also knew that I was about to hear some very informed, articulate and interesting opinions.

Discussions were led by Julian Rhys of Frostrow Capital and Derek Wright of Kleinwort Benson. Very interesting choices, made long before London lost our top spot as the world's financial centre.

The first question to be addressed was "Do we need to be in London to do business?" There are some very valid points to both sides of this: we are never more than a few feet from Blackberry, mobile phone or computer and conduct most business remotely, so why does it matter where we are? There are hundreds of extremely successful businesses that operate outside of London, so is our fear that removing ourselves from London will decimate business totally irrational? Andrew Pullman, MD of People Risk Solutions, said that he hadn't had an office in London for years, and this not only had no effect on his business, but also had saved him considerable expense!

Contrary to this, some argue that you need to be near clients, to be near the action, the hubbub and the buzz of a large conurbation. There was a split in the room here. Each argument is equally valid and equally flawed - we shouldn't need to be in London, but we really want to be.

The third sector viewpoint came up here: responding to a member survey around 2 years ago, ACEVO established an office in Leeds. There were a great number of our members who wanted a greater level of engagement with ACEVO, but were prevented by our location in London. A great number of them are delivering services to local areas, and therefore have no stakeholders in London. So we asked, we listened and we did. And the response was great: we are now offering valuable help to hundreds more members in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside.

The next point was around the future for London - what is happening now that will affect our beloved city in 5, 10 or 20 years. We reminded ourselves about the Olympic games, and how successful 2012 will be for London and the UK. However, is this a sustainable future? Plans are of course being made to ensure the sporting venues will be put to use after the post-games exodus, but there is a nagging doubt that we may be left with a games-shaped hole in our city.

Alongside this temporary peak of the activity around London, will be the cultural Olympiad. A festival of art, theatre and music has accompanied the games for some years, and London's will sit next to some of the most impressive and extensive arts, heritage and cultural venues in the world.

At this point, we were joined by Philip Henson, a Partner at law firm Bargate Murray. He had been interviewing with the BBC and so arrived late. It was quite wrong-footing to see, as the last morsels of lamb were removed from the room, more cheese and leek tart arrive. I knew the Scots had interesting views on cuisine (not least the manifestly artery clogging deep-fried pizza), but surely not starter followed by main course followed by starter? All my fears were laid to rest when I realised that rather than join us for pudding, Philip was going to get the whole meal, and a very good thing - it was delicious!

Two themes appeared throughout the night throughout our discussions. The first was the idea of ‘UK Plc', and how it is currently valued. The second was around the responsibility of the media for ensuring that the good news is heard, how London is promoted and how we shout about our successes.

These two combine nicely, and as a group of rational beings we might quite rightly assume that the press is to blame. Luckily, we had a representative of the media with us. Chrissie Smith is a trainer with Electric Airwaves, the media training group and has advised many nervous or inexperienced professionals on how to deal with and engage with tricky interviews, and more importantly, tricky interviewers. It was really interesting to hear a seasoned journalist talking about how media and press can play such a vital role in the communication of ideas.

Equally insightful and vocal, as fellow guests, were Sara Dixon of Firm Beliefs, Ken Cohen of the Fifth Business Experience, Deborah Jeff of Seddons and Norma Stewart of Wellers.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the evening, and look forward to the next event. These dinners are a fantastic opportunity to slow down our thoughts and devote some real time to issues that interest us, affect us and allow us to find new relationships and areas for future collaboration.

Richard McKelvey 17^th March 2010

Every year we have a rolling programme of talking to people, asking, listening, trying not to get upset when they say we could have done some things better, trying not to take over the world when they say we are the best they have ever worked with. We all like to think we know that the world is as we think it is, that we are right in our judgement of ourselves and our businesses and our colleagues and our family and our friends.

We work in two sectors in terms of skills development and in terms of consultancy offerings. Yet we operate in many sectors when it comes to achieving success for those two sectors. There are only a few of us who work full time for Firm Beliefs yet we need, and appreciate, the services of others who work with us part time, ad hoc, as and when etc. We take on board guidance and opinions from our Advisory Board members (particularly those for Firm Elite who frankly often turn out to be Advisory Board members for most of our services!) many of whom are not our clients and who do not work with us formally - be that part time or full time. We rely very much on those who provide services to us - particularly SugarShaker. We don't know what we don't know. We rely on them to alert us to things we ought to know - particularly in the world of social media, web design and construction, online marketing, off line marketing etc. So we take advantage of our luck in the people who are involved with us in so many ways; we take advantage of our knowledge of other sectors. And we consult, we ask, we chat, we listen.

The upshot of doing that this past year is that we now know that we do more than we think. We help our clients move forward by providing consulting services and developing their skills. We are passionate about connecting with others and getting others to see the benefit of doing the same - and that benefits many, not just us. And, soon to be revealed formally, we do care about the impact that we make on the environment, on society, on the world.

So, having had that pointed out to us (just as we would point it out to others when we are being the objective viewer), we have revamped our website to reflect that. It also makes it more interesting to talk to others about what we do (consultancy and skills development for law firms and charities does tend to sound a bit 'yawn'...Even I fall asleep as I am saying the words and I am passionate about what we do!) Now we know we help organisations succeed, we make connections for them and we help them make a difference where they can for the right reasons. It leads to more questions from the listener and, there we go, we are in conversation.

So, I am going to state the bleedin' obvious again - ask, listen, take on board, review, change, adapt. There are many stakeholders who surround you and your organisation. Don't lose their generous wisdom.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

Nick Anstee, of SJ Berwin, accountant by trade, seems a decent enough man. Hard working. Earnest. I would like him on my team in any project which knew where it was going and needed a firm steady calm hand to get it there. But, and here I have to say I would possibly have to think twice, if my firm were undergoing a paradigm shift such as the City of London and the financial sector is experiencing I am not sure he would be the front man - at least based on the speech that he gave. I waited for him to identify and analyse changing stakeholder needs in today's world. He didn't. My impression from the speech was one of ‘we were good in the past; we need to retain our pre-eminent place in the world as we always have done because we want to, please don't make us change too much; we are happy to tweak at the edges but ultimately... and if you make us change too much, we won't survive and then you will be sorry' etc etc.

Mr Anstee has worked in a sector, the legal sector, which has seen the most interesting challenges to its raison d'etre. So he should know better than to simply apply same old principles to same old paradigms and tweak a bit to maintain status quo and keep those in power happy for just a wee while longer before they retire. Now, of course, it he alone cannot change the entire focus of the entire City's view of itself and of its entire stakeholder community's views of it. He only has a year in post - what can a man do in a year? There may be all sorts of attempts by him behind the scenes to encourage the City to change its process of thought about the role that it plays in the future. We don't know to be fair. His calm, moderate tone may hide all sorts of passionate debates that he has with his cohorts in the City when not standing on a podium in front of a very varied audience, many of whom clearly gave scant credibility to his words.

But I was interested in the number of times he mentioned that OTHERS are needed to help the City deliver on its services: ‘We need the government to provide a competitive business environment underpinned by policies that offer predictability, stability and clarity, to ensure that the City remains a valuable cluster of specialist international expertise.' And ‘The net result of all of these threats is business uncertainty. Uncertainty which will harm the UK and the EU as well. What the City needs is predictability, clarity and certainty from our politicians.' Where is the financial sector itself in this ‘need' for action? I know that the city and government and world global order is a complex interplay between competing forces that ultimately need each other BUT at a time when businesses and individuals are trying to take control of their own futures by throwing out old thinking and taking control of their own destinies, is it so hard for the financial sector to do the same?

Energy? Drive? Vision? I didn't see evidence that the sector is doing that from his speech. Any sector or business can only drive itself forward based on demand for its services. Demand comes from others - not from its own wish to survive... If the world, Europe, the UK, the individual does not demand that the City provides what it has done, in the way that it has done, then the City must rethink its raison d'etre.

There was a hint of the bigger picture when Mr Anstee mentioned a forthcoming speech: ‘Last month, Stephen Green, Chairman of HSBC, spoke here about values creating value; and on October 4 I will be holding another event here called "Trust in the City: beyond Law and Regulation," about how the financial services industry relates to wider society. I strongly believe that we can approach that future perfect the City is striving for: the ideal fusion of good old fashioned values of honesty, fair dealing, and ethical behaviour and modern transparent business practise.' The mention of ‘wider society' gives one hope that some stakeholder engagement and analysis is being undertaken with a wider stakeholder community. But who knows? We wait and see.

In case any of you think I am being unfair, you can read his speech at: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=39&EventId=1069 Also, this speech was part of the Gresham College Free Public Lecture series. Excellent range of talks; great concept that they are free. Maybe parts of the City do have a purpose in a world where so much knowledge and information is accessible to the rest of society - for free...

I have looked for a way to help, via the International Bar Association, via the Law Society etc - no guidance on how lawyers/ex-lawyers can use their skills and contacts to assist. No call by them to raise funds within law firms for this, and other, humanitarian disasters.

As individuals we are all doing what we can by donating to those NGOs who have the ability to assist right now on the ground. Clearly as individual lawyers we may give a few hours' pro bono to Advocates for International Development or Lawyers Without Borders - usually, but not always, sanctioned by law firm employers.

But as a profession, what are we doing? Should we not be planning now how to support the lawyers in Pakistan as they deal with the numerous issues that will arise as the country tries to get back on its feet , how to support the families and individuals who will have lost everything? Why are we so silent?

So change can mean the objective to be achieved being different in some way from the existing objective, or the process used to achieve that new objective. Either way, tension, opposition, cynicism abound.

There are plenty of articles written about change (this of course being one of them!) and plenty of programmes in organisations based around models of change, concepts of change, change outcomes, change processes, change in the title of the job.

Imagine if you were not allowed to use the word?

We once ran 2 parallel projects for a client in which the word change was not allowed to be used in one of the two similar projects – either in the job labels of those involved, the project aims or the process to be used. It was enlightening!

We noticed that:

1. Not using the message ‘this is where and how we need to change to meet the needs of the future’ and substituting ‘this is where we would like to be in the future’ elicited a positive response in the 'change word is banned' project than in the other, where the ‘old style’ of communication was used.

2. Those who felt under threat from the potential ‘changes’ engaged less readily than those who had initially felt equally threatened by ‘new methods’ when such language was used.

3. Managers tasked with ‘change’ felt an obligation to minimise pressure on their teams, often leading to stress for themselves; whereas those tasked with ‘new outcomes’ felt energised themselves and were able to enthuse teams around them.

4. The implementation of the ‘changed aims’ worked less effectively than the implementation of the ‘new way’.

Of course, objective post-projects work and feedback threw up many reasons why there might have been differences in the comparable project process and success of the outcome. But the interesting part of the feedback was why the participants in the projects explained the success differences – simply dropping the use of the term ‘change’ was key they felt.

This is possibly a slightly whimsical article – not particularly learned, not full of management jargon. But it does just pose a thought amongst the hurly burly and challenges of the sector world that you inhabit - by all means employ consultants, use change models and change processes in the future – but see what happens if you ban the use of the word ‘change’. It might actually make a difference to the attitude of those who are part of the process. Which in turn could make a difference to the success of the process. And in turn to the outcome. Give it a go...

Conference 1 - excellent IBM/START conference on sustainability (part of the Prince of Wales' series of events encouraging debate on latest thinking amongst business). Why excellent? Not many of the speakers had the title ‘sustainability' or ‘CSR'. They were heads of marketing, development, CFO, CEO etc of some of the most innovative companies here in the UK, with global reach. And sustainability was slap bang in the middle of their corporate role. It was at this conference that I asked why there were no law firms/lawyers on the panels giving their insight into the issues of human rights, environment and traditional plain old economic sustainability. ‘If we want lawyers to understand the sustainability issues we face and the risks they have to manage for us in our legal contracts, we go to the US' said one CEO of a rather well-known company. ‘We spend more time getting the lawyers to understand the issues than we do the most outmoded intransigent individuals in our own organisations' said another. Why is this I wondered? If high value-addinglawyers are to advise and manage the legal implications of policy board level decisions, and most of those decisions these days are based on principles of sustainability, why are we not seen as adding value in any way to the more general discussions? Are we not actualy adding the value? Is it that we are not thinking as businesses ourselves? (Regular readers of this blog will know that I firmly identify myself as a lawyer, albeit no longer practising, whenever the legal profession is under attack!)

Conference 2 - another great conference courtesy of the Legatum Institute - this time on human trafficking. I was part of a panel which was talking about the financial sector and its role in trafficking and providing details of a project with which I am involved. A US lawyer was there. ‘You UK lawyers have lost your passion and your drive for making a difference in the world - the odd bit of pro bono which you publicise and that is about it'. So if we no longer communicate the passion for making a difference as individuals, how is that to be effectively translated into our brands as lawyers, firms and the UK legal profession?

Conference 3 - final (thankfully) conference of the week. The Law Society International Development conference on business and human rights. There right in front of me was a collection of lawyers talking about business - not that many I am ashamed to say realised that it is they who are a business, not just their clients. A number of young corporate lawyers mentioned that they often have a problem with the lawyers leading corporate deals who think that ‘human rights and other sustainability issues are for the pro bono doing good in the world' type lawyers. It appears that the younger ones are able to see the business issues facing clients in today's world before the more senior lawyers. So are we failing to see the commercial implications of what was once dubbed 'human rights and environmental idealism in young lawyers'?

And yet... there are visions of optimism. Firm Beliefs' clients now ask the question as a matter of course ‘given the changes in today's world, how does being a lawyer affect those changes? Can we affect them positively? In terms of how we operate, where we operate, who our clients are etc.' It leads to difficult decisions of course - if one client sees a law firm as part of its supply chain and that firm has contacts with 'the wrong type of client' they risk being removed from that supply chain. But that is business. But asking the questions gives them a focus for where the sustainability in markets will be etc. Simple basic strategic discussions. Trouble is too many law firms don't have the sophistication in business to ask the simple basic questions about business and management. But they are the ones who will fail to succeed in business and indeed are doing so. And if the management in the firm are thinking sustainably about the business, have they communicated what sustainability actually means to the lawyers?

Which means that those that will be left will be asking the real questions about sustainability, who will move away from the ‘£50 quid to 50 different charities' approach to sustainability/CSR/outmoded corporate philanthropy approach. And many are now beginning the communications task of getting their clients and their other stakeholders to realise that lawyers are businesses who think sustainably within their own organisations and can thus add understanding and insight into the legal requirements of their clients. And so finally the legal profession may actually begin to contribute seriously to the big questions of the day.

And maybe I shan't have to sit through another 3 conferences and pretend to be a dentist!

It was my first drink of the year with Noying Norman (listeners to our audio boo will have met him before) and we were reviewing where our businesses would take us this year.

I reflected. 'Actually', said I after we had sipped, whilst pondering quietly, a little more of the rather good bottle of red we shared, 'it is not the sectors that are in decline. It is the way the sectors deliver what they are there to achieve that is changing. The only decline is if you see the old way as the better way.'

Noying Norman and I each qualified as lawyers quite some time ago now - he like me is nearer the 50 year age bracket than the 40 these days. When we each started, only lawyers could do much of what today can be done by non-qualified professionals; and only lawyers had the answers to much of what is now freely available on the internet. Solicitors could only go into business with each other; now they can be far more flexible about who they are in business with. Indeed, soon enough some practising lawyers will be owned by non-legal-professional businesses.

Noying Norman and I are both very much involved in charities and always have been. When we each became trustees years ago, charities did what they did (the 'good for society' stuff) and businesses did what they did ('good for shareholders; bad for society' stuff). Today, with the advent of social entrepreneurs, with changing in giving patterns, microfinance, social impact measurement, joint ventures with non-charitable organisations etc, you don't need to be a charity to do the good that they once had as a captive market.

So, either way, both of these sectors are changing rapidly. What each can achieve is not declining - it is growing. We will see the provision of legal services to clients in a way which enhances both business AND social good - and this can open up new markets to lawyers - both in terms of their own operations but also in terms of how they can enable clients to do the same with their own operations. We are seeing already the provision of services by organisations whose sole aim is to do good for society being enhanced by working with both not for profit and for profit organisations - to share experience, resources and yes share markets but also expand those markets.

So as we supped our good wine, he agreed with me that the sectors that Firm Beliefs works in are not declining. They are changing. For the better, we thought. Much opportunity out there. Lots to do. Happy New Year everybody.

Essentially, we promote online business and communication through web- based technology, and believe that this benefits society in a number of ways. The key point is that it breaks down geographic barriers to enable instant access to information, share knowledge and can spread wealth wherever users are in the globe. It also creates a more level playing field for small businesses to compete and enables remote users to communicate with others.

The digital channel has forced many large businesses to become more transparent and aware of their operating practices. There is 'nowhere to hide' - users have many ways to source and research information about businesses and make more informed choices. As a business, we therefore encourage clients to be transparent when communicating online.

Good design, relevant content and communication tools can be used to build trust with a brand, business or organisation - and trust is an all round positive force in any society.

It is up to the clients themselves to then use the tools and guidance we provide them with to make a positive impact whether that be locally, nationally or internationally. We focus on the UK market, and we can support small regional / remote businesses / start-ups as well as larger corporates based in the population centers.

We choose not to work with clients that to our knowledge have a flagrant disregard towards essential social or environmental issues.

We support charities where we can, either by doing work at discounted rates or by providing some free consultancy. We have worked for British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research and also local charities such as Murton Wildlife Trust (new site coming soon!) which provides training and education for disadvantaged local 'youth' and teaches them about working in a rural environment.

We also support charities through donations, and support local communities through sponsoring local events, newsletters etc. I am also involved in the local charity group, who put on activities and events in the community (beer festival, music festival, donkey derby) to raise funds for local schools, community projects, pensioners etc.

As a result of our operations / environmental policy, we try to recycled all office waste including plastics where possible, compost all organic waste, maximise use of public transport where possible and reduced unnecessary traveling. We try to reduce home office energy consumption to a bare minimum and generally encourage others to be more environmentally aware.

In terms of sourcing skills, we are totally non-discriminatory, including by location as all of our suppliers work from home. Our network of freelancers are mainly spread across the UK with some overseas, so our business income is not centralised in any one geographical / population center, therefore spreading wealth into remote communities.

Generally, we try to be aware, helpful and fair.

Alasdair Orr http://www.sugarshaker.com/

We are told that fear of change is a common thing - it matters not how old you are or what your experiences of personal or business life have been - we all fear it at some point.

Often those who fear it the most are those charged with bringing the change to others.

A conversation last night with a contact, who had experienced a completely unexpected reaction to a proposal she had made for extending quite dramatically the market base of her own client, led me to realise that sometimes we assume that, change being as prevalent as it is, the fear is lessened the more responsibility one has - after all, isn't it the job of those 'at the top' to lead change? And surely they have been doing it for some time now?

I always assume a response to a new proposal, for the leadership team to consider, as ranging from 'yes, but I have some questions' (the better response) to 'what you are talking about is not of the remotest interest or significance to this business' (thankfully such responses are few and far between). The general response tends to be, certainly in law firms and charities anyway, 'well, I am not so sure, I need more information'. That is usually translated as 'I am not so sure, I need more reassurance and information is one way for me to feel comfortable with this.'

When asked what information they would like, I expect a range of responses again - from 'explain it to me using different terminology and jargon which don't use the words 'maximisation of opportunity and minimisation of ... risk' to 'just tell me how it will save us from.... increase our income to.... extend our market share by....' In other words, give me the end result first - that will help me through the scary bit - the changes I need to make to get this team to where it needs to be. If I can see the end goal in my mind it will help.

But for many, the end goal cannot be seen - the fear of taking charge, leading change and... failing to succeed in that, takes over.

Because it is not the fear of change that stops us moving forward and addressing new ideas/reviewing what we do differently - it is the fear of failure to lead that change.

So, as my contact said, what I realise is that I must assume sometimes that the resistance is not to the change - but to the leadership team putting themselves at the head of the change process - and failing.

Lawyers and change; charities and change; professionals and change; leaders and change; it is the day job for many of us. And often we are told 'I wouldn't have your job for £xm. They never want to change'.

Oh yes they do. They just fear - not change itself; but the process and the risk that they might not succeed in leading the change.

But, as requested by fellow business people who were not there but who have asked me to tell them the story of my visit, an attempt follows.

But wait - business people wanting to know what the situation is in the slums of Mumbai; in the red light districts, in the factories, in the communities? Surely that is the remit of the charity world alone? After all, to many, businesses cause the problems; governments fail to act on the problems. Traditionally the only way that businesses are actively welcomed into the charity arena is if they have cash to give or influential philanthropists to introduce. Or if they have behaved so badly in terms of their supply chain policies or corporate reporting that they are prime target for bashing by the charity sector.

Certainly there are issues for business to address. Large corporate hoardings advertising their brands attract the eye - and as the eye lowers, you see that the hoardings legs are positioned in the slum areas - so slap bang on top of the people who live there. Hardly the best message - but it does reinforce the interconnected nature of business and the supply chain - or how businesses involve people to achieve their profits.

They use them well (hence in some of the slum projects, businesses provide support in terms of money, training and access to their own markets - they capacity build).

Or they use them bad (ignoring the poverty in the countries in which they operate, not noticing the irony of their products being carefully packed to survive transit via Mumbai train station whilst all around the train station babies and young children sit and play on the rubbish heaps between the tracks, along with goats, pigs and toxic waste, discarded parts of other people's lives.)

And what of the business executives who use the prostitutes so frequently to be found in red light districts or in hotels. Do they ever ask where the prostitutes come from as they by their very actions bring their employers into positions of vicariously liable criminal activity? When asked her name by one of our party, a very young prostitute found it all too much - nobody had asked her her real name since she was recruited ‘to work in profitable industry in Mumbai'.

And what of the organisations working in partnership with governments who design and build the new high rise apartments into which slum communities are to be moved? Where in the design are the places for the community to share experiences, to watch each other's children, to park their portable trolleys and to keep the animals which are used to transport their wares to the areas where sales can be made? All that happens is that the families move back to the slums.

But the charity sector needs to look within its own heart for solutions as well. The story of the excellent empowerment programme run for women by women along business lines - from initial engagement in training through to final governance and sustainability - microfinance to set up small businesses, training in legal rights and business management, savings plans, social and health programmes... Yet, when the churches in the area were asked to take a role - nothing.

And what of faith charities who provide much needed places for the children of prostitutes to live and learn and be kept safe from following in their mothers' footsteps? Is being of the same faith conditional on that help being provided? And how much does the faith of an adult or of an organisation play in the daily lives of their young charges, regardless of the faith of the mother? Does it matter? The children are safe. But the imposition yet again of the views and practices of those in positions of power over the future of the children can be as prevalent in their lives as those of the businesses and governments that surround them or ignore them.

And finally as the human beings in the cars race around the roads of Mumbai, do they notice - as night falls - the ancient, the infirm, the disabled and the oh so very young toddlers - alone on the road where the traffic whizzes past them, simply trying to find a safe place to lie down on the hard floor amongst the stray dogs.

And what of the human beings who walk in the road because the pavements are full of people trying to find shelter from the rain or the unbearable heat of the midday sun. The young mother aged maybe 16 at the most, with a toddler pulling on the feathers of the chickens roaming around, sucking on the faeces of a nearby goat, whilst a small baby sleeps curled up, no nappy and no clothes. What if the mother dies? As she sleeps, the people walk by and don't seem to notice the toddler crawling into the road, in the path of incoming traffic. Not for them the chance to even live in the comparative safety of the slums.

It takes a connected world of communities to act together to solve these problems. When a charity can only look after the girl children of the poor to save them from prostitution or being trafficked, and the charity worker knows that outside the window is the baby brother of the little girl inside - there is simply no room for the brother. So he is open to all the dangers that our own protected children face from simply growing up - plus more such as being trafficked to Cote d'Ivoire for use in the chocolate manufacturing sector. Or into the sex industry. Or to be trained to take a drugged baby around the streets and on the train carriages begging - and if he fails to bring back all that is required, he will be beaten. If there is no cash from others who have it; no eyes to watch from those who have them..., no solutions from those paid thousands to find solutions for industry.

To my mind, Slumdog Millionaire only touched the surface of the horror. If you were troubled by that film, go to the reality. It is far worse. But don't just feel the awfulness of it all. Whoever you are, start to think of the solutions - and the role that you can play in that..

I was taken around the projects by those involved in Stop the Traffik - a coalition, a movement, a source of hope to the many who are trafficked for the part that they can play in so many communities' lives. The issues of poverty and human nature, of who has the power in the world vs who doesn't, of when the sights and sounds are so terrible that we switch off for self- preservation. But Stop the Traffik makes the first moves - not for them the refrain ‘how can one person do anything to solve this problem'. No, for them, they engage communities to think for themselves about the problems - to engage with others who also think that every person can make a difference - by coming together with communities of individuals, regardless of sector, age, creed, colour or wealth.

So what can we each do to help? I urge you to look at the work of so many who themselves took a first step via this wonderful charity. Go to:

http://www.stopthetraffik.org/ And here I declare my own passion for one of its projects: http://www.financeagainsttrafficking.org/

We have nothing to lose by a click on the sites. Others have so much to gain. We owe it to them. And, frankly, to ourselves.

It seems to me that, given this context, it is all the more important that charity trustees and senior management teams are working closely together to look at the strategic options open to them as they consider the possible scenarios for the future and how they should create them or respond to them. One of the options that might be raised is the possibility of a merger with another charity, but this needs very careful consideration. If the charity sector were fully commercial in its approach then a scan of the market would suggest that it was ripe for consolidation with too many unsustainable players in any one field - but it's not. Whilst many of the issues that need to be considered in looking at a merger are the same as in a commercial context (such as competition for funds, efficiency and effectiveness), the business model of a charity also brings different dimensions.

When I first moved into the charity sector, nearly 10 years ago, and tried to get my head around it, one of my early conclusions was that there are more similarities with the commercial sector than differences. However, in terms of a somewhat simplistic business model, I developed an image of investors (donors) who want a return - but not in traditional financial terms; customers (beneficiaries) who want a service - but often without paying for it; and employees who are motivated by "wanting to make a difference" rather than maximising their earnings. This is far from a perfect image, but if a charity is considering the possibility of a merger then the implications for these three key stakeholder groups, and in particular the beneficiaries/customers, needs to be at the heart of the decision making. Mergers can be the right strategic solution in the right circumstances, but they are time consuming and potentially distracting. Some kind of financial crisis is rarely the "right circumstances" and if you don't have some confidence that the outcome will achieve a better prospect of delivering your purpose over the medium to long term, then apply extreme caution.

It's also important to recognise that you can work with other charities without going the "whole hog" of merging with each other. Look for opportunities to collaborate, such as:

• shared "service delivery", taking advantage of each other's strengths;
• developing joint proposals to donors/funders;
• sharing support services such as HR, IT and Finance;
• joint approaches to advocacy and lobbying where appropriate.

I would never recommend turning down the opportunity to consider a merger with another charity, particularly in these uncertain times, but the question "are you sure?" needs to be asked over and over again as the issues and implications are explored.

Blog by John Shaw

Magic circle, silver circle, city practice, national firm, high street practice, commoditised services provider. None of these latter descriptions give the purchaser of legal services or the potential recruit or the investor any idea about the viability long term of where they choose to put their legal needs, their employment time, or their investment.

Take 'we are a west end firm and want to stay as such' as a response to 'who are you?'. What does that exactly mean? We asked one such firm and they couldn't tell us. Does it mean that they don't take clients who are not in the west end? That they only employ staff from the west end? And if it is just they are geographically based in the west end - well fine but that is not really a description of who they are - just where they are. And that has never been a key differentiating factor as far as we can tell in successfully providing legal services. So why use the definition?

We met with another firm based in the west end. 'We are lawyers who provide services to entrepreneurs who want to get bigger in terms of their market sectors and their business turnover'. Well, at least it gives the potential client, investor and employee an idea of who they are, what they do and where their focus is.

We met the CEO of a silver circle firm along with the CFO of a national firm. 'We have no need to worry about the future. Or indeed to be excited about it'. At the same meeting, we heard from another two CEOs of a silver circle and a national firm 'We view the future with awe but we are in business to do just that'. The description 'silver circle' and 'national' gives no hint of the viability of the firm nor, clearly, even of a commonality of approach to the business of law.

Categorising along the old traditional lines does nothing to enable the client, the investor or the employee to gain insight into the nature of the work, the nature of the service and the attitude of the firm they are looking at or the individual they are talking to.

So for us, these days, 'Going Places' and 'Remedials' are the two groups, There is of course the 'on the edge between the two' category - and to see which way they fall, we need to ask the questions 'who are you' and 'how would you describe what you do' and 'what is your attitude to the future', Their answers tell us which they fall into. Healthy respect for the uncertainties of the future, well honed realistic definitions of who they serve, and a willingness to dispense with the old categories when describing themselves are all clues.

For us, advising others on the legal services market place and those in it, those 2 categories usually suffice as a judgment on which firms will be around for a while...

I asked her why the world of legal services is so interesting to her at the moment: "Being the CE of a barristers chambers is particularly challenging when you appreciate that all the barristers in a chambers are self-employed, with motivations that range from the self-focused to group focus of all. Taking individuals from a self-focus to a focus that is good for the entire team is what will be key to the success of both chambers and law firms. The strategic and organisational changes are enormous for the legal sector, particularly with the arrival of the Legal Services Act and the Alternative Business Structure. I am particularly interested in the structural changes that are inevitable in both solicitors practices and barristers chambers."

As well as joining the legal services consultancy team, Joanna will join Sara in working with clients looking at how the focus on corporate responsibility can make improvements to the success of the business, as well as to the internal culture and the various stakeholders. Joanna will join Sara and Gareth in supporting those who are participating in the skills development programmes (or " mini MBA programmes.")

On top of all that, Joanna will continue to climb mountains, walk along hills and dales and find the time to do the odd bit of life saving...

Joanna will be speaking on Monday 28th February, alongside Peter Lodder QC, Chairman of the Bar, and Robin Toulson QC, about the impact that ABS, Legal Services Act, and numerous other strategic and regulatory changes will have upon Chambers and their structures.

Further details of the event, run by Iris Legal Solutions, can be accessed here: http://legal-software.iris.co.uk/procureco__direct_access.aspx

Sara will be speaking at an event, run by City Action, which aims to discuss and learn about the future of cross-sector working - in particular building community investment into business practice.

Details here:

A brief note for anyone visiting the Caledonian Club: if, at times throughout your evening, you are under the impression that one of your fellow patrons has an incredibly ostentatious yet appropriately Scottish ring-tone on their mobile, do not be fooled. At various points a piper in full ceremonial regalia - kilt, sporran and hat - will blast a few lines of "Flower of Scotland" or similar.

The conversation stayed with the theme of gastronomy for some time. We had, as our conversation leader, Caroline Taylor of IBM UK, who we all now know to be expert on a great number of diverse subjects. Caroline is a self-confessed Francophile, and this was demonstrated by her vast knowledge of, especially, wine. I was shocked to learn that grapes in the champagne region don't make great still wine and yet the alchemy of turning it into champagne transforms mediocre still wine into the drink of the Gods! "Does this mean we should all be buying up cases of Blue Nun?" I asked. Apparently it's a bit more complicated.

Before we had polished off the starters of Beef Carpaccio, we had already agreed on a Firm Elite ‘Day Out' - a trip to Cornwall to sample some of England's finest fizz, and a visit the Eden Project.

So we had finally hit on the theme - sustainability.

As the main course of sea bass arrived, we settled into a conversation around IBM, their recent achievements and, most importantly, their policies and agenda on sustainability, and corporate responsibility.

We learned of Watson, the super computer, that has recently won the US quiz show Jeopardy - a very impressive accomplishment to be sure, but we wondered how it would cope with our UK quizzes. Would Watson cope with Paxman and/or Fry? We also talked about the statistical nature of this sort of programing - all the possible permutations and how the mighty machine could process them. This reminded me of a story about three statisticians that go hunting: one shoots at a dear and misses, ten feet from the left. The next shoots and misses, ten feet from the right. The third jumps up and shouts "I hit it!"

Onto sustainability then - IBM use a ‘triple bottom line' approach: People, Planet, Profit. The values are clear on this: sustainability means to this corporation, ‘the capacity to endure'.

This endurance must be on three counts:

Value creation for shareholders Profit

Fair treatment of staff and customers People

Supply chain management Planet

A lot of the conversation focused on the people element - especially around recruitment policies.

We discussed how sustainability and corporate responsibility is now the third most important criterion for graduates looking at opportunities, next to salary and development potential. Indeed, some will take a lower-paying job at a company with good CSR and sustainable business policies.

IBM is 100 years old in 2011. We looked at two points in its history that demonstrate how this focus on people has been imbedded in its value system throughout its corporate life and development.

1. In the 1930s, all staff were put on salaries. This set it apart from the hourly-paying competitors, as well as increasing employee engagement and staff retention.
2. In the 50s, all staff on the same level were paid equally. This was again a groundbreaking step towards equal rights and again manifestly altered how the company was viewed by employees and perspective employees alike.

Where these have a real impact of course, is in how customers view a company. If they are seen to treat people well, the level of engagement and loyalty will surely increase. This is demonstrated mostly in retail and ‘B to C' sectors (John Lewis being a fine example) where consumers are fed messages of how the business connects with its people.

The question after all of this conversation was raised, "Where are people on the Profit and Loss accounts?" Always on the ‘Loss' side. Do we need to rethink this? An interesting point - the biggest assets of most firms walk in at 9am and leave eight hours later (or longer). Should they be recognised as assets in the financial reports?

The end of these evenings always results in a series of questions asked. And we always seek answers to these in the discussion on our LinkedIn group in the weeks afterwards.

• How does the triple bottom line system become one line? This was another key question. If we are to give these the same weight, should we put one above any others?
• Should businesses be saying ‘No' to suppliers? Or to customers? Or both, to make our values clear to shareholders, employees and customers? (Sara of Firm Beliefs announced that they had already made a number of key decisions around this area and will be monitoring the results on client reaction!)
• How do we harness all of the innovation around us? This is a big question of "Where do we start"! On this point - IBM are a prime example of meeting need and accessing innovative thinking. They started out making meat slicing machines (was the name originally "International Bacon Machines"?)..

We also came up with some statements. These could be ‘Future Truths' - a lie that we determine to be true at some point in the future; most likely they are distilled and accurately observed points that have been inferred from our evening's discussions.

Leadership needs to go through a translation process - conviction to belief.

Authenticity is key for leading sustainability initiatives - those that are PR driven and for superficial, short-term gain only, are so transparently, both to customers, shareholders and staff.

To change attitudes of key groups, first change our own behaviour.

Collaboration is the only way this will happen.

To end with the oft-quoted Al Gore:

"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We need to go very, very fast."

Guests were: Caroline Taylor, Sara Dixon, Kehrela Hodkinson, John Wood, Nicole Bigby, Joanna Poulton, Ken Cohen, Orli Gorenski, Richard McKelvey, Xenia Murray.

Guest blogger: Richard McKelvey

Which is why there are a number of individuals who are charged with succeeding in organisational strategy who concentrate on the piece of paper and not on the real questions. They don't know the questions to ask. They don't have the techniques to help them answer.

Sounds harsh but true. I attended the IRIS procureco/ABS event at which my colleague Joanna Poulton was speaking. A room made up of barristers' clerks, chambers managers and barristers. The in-depth discussion I heard around me was based on 'what model', 'what terms', 'what clauses', 'what control mechanisms' - not a single comment was focused on 'this is just one way of moving forward into a future which we still need to tackle'. As Joanna said 'the context in which these choices are to be made is a business context, not a legal context.' The end result is that Chambers are simply stopping - endless hours of discussion about procurecos and ABS and in the meantime no forward and future planning on the bigger picture. Whether or not a chambers sets up a procureco or enters into an ABS the reality is that the world moves on and there are gains to be made, regardless of how they are achieved. And that broader context is important - when the Chair of the Bar makes a comment that implies is doing all he can to make sure barristers retain their traditional place in the provision of legal services, without any mention of the fact that perhaps it is the traditional place that needs to be ditched and a new one found, you wonder what hope for the future for the Bar.

I have also been speaking with law firms where they are not aware of Outcomes Focused Regulation, for example, and spend a deal of time learning about it, and then stop in their tracks... 'We can't do this? We don't understand this? Let's wait until somebody else tells us what it means.' And they stop - all activity including marketing, market development, staff development etc because there is something ahead of them they don't understand and as they cannot jump the hurdle because they don't know how high it is, they just stop.

I am not saying that decisions regarding ABS, Procureco, Outcomes Focused Regulation etc (which is not really a choice at the end of the day), are not there to be tackled - they must be. They are hurdles, or chances or opportunities, to be overcome. But it doesn't mean that you stop the race until you can jump them. You just run past them in the overall direction of the end. Until you are ready to deal with them. Otherwise, you stop. You will never reach the end. Keep going - however you do it. Look at the finish line. Others are avoiding the hurdles where and when they can. They jump the ones they know how to jump when they can - otherwise they just avoid them and keep going.

Led by Sally Osman, specialist in corporate storytelling, former Director of Communications at the BBC, Channel 5 and Sky, the greatest cynic would have by the end of the dinner realised the benefits (social, economic and environmental) in leading with values. Individual responsibility, corporate responsibility, national responsibility - the conversation led back and forth between micro and macro. It proved to be one of the most dynamic discussions we have had. Real learning took place - takeaways for ideas and practical implementation of projects mentioned by others.

It was a night of questions and hotly debated answers: who starts the discussion on ‘values' in an organisation? Do leaders ‘make the values'? Do shareholders like values? Are values the same as behaviour? When do values become mere slogans? What is the connection between values and integrity? Do we have values but only integrity when we make the decision to act on our values? Is it only communications folk who like values? Do we observe values? Or do we observe behaviour which reflects those values? What is the connection between brand and values? Are values in the eye of the beholder whereas a brand only in the eye of the communications/marketing folk? Are there generational problems ahead for those who don't ‘do' values? Where does pragmatism lie when making decisions based on values? And where do values relate to trust? (Check out the Edelman Trust Barometer for example.) What relationship does purpose have with values? And where does authenticity lie amongst all of these concepts.

We discussed retailers, professional services firms, media organisations, charities, governments, political institutions, energy companies and the individual leaders within them. Not forgetting the Banks and the MPs... For some, this was completely new (‘our organisation has no concept of this - we just get on with our job'); for others, this is deeply embedded within the organisation's psyche and is seen as a key differentiator when it comes to new markets and recruitment etc.

This was a significant dinner for two reasons: first, we found out that the venue is no longer one which is open only to men as members (which does indeed mean we women now have to go into the bar to buy our own drinks! - as pointed out with real gusto recently by Richard in another blog); second, we saw some real passion within every guest as they engaged with the topic. Which tells us that those organisations who have not yet considered the issue of leadership with values are missing a trick when it comes to engaging with their stakeholders. If we were anything to go by, it is a topic which drives debate, exchanges of views, new knowledge and exchanges of experiences to help implement that knowledge. And that is the key in today's world to driving organisations forward.

If you weren't there, you missed the chance to assess, or even begin to formulate, your own and your organisation's values - as Walt Disney said: It's not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are. And decisions are what we do every day. So if you don't know what your values are, how sustainable are your decisions?

Thanks to Sally Osman for taking us on the journey during dinner by so excellently challenging and engaging us in the debate. Guests who took up the challenge were Sara Dixon, Julian Rhys, Deborah Jeff, Anne-Marie Ellis, Xenia Murray, Andrew Hillier and Ken Cohen.

A long, long time ago way back in 2008 any fee income was good fee income. That’s how it went for most professional service firms. A desperate hunt for revenue. Fair enough, it was a tough time. Profits were as much a result of driving costs down ‘at any cost’. Three years on, still operating on this basis is risky – the danger is of undermining the things needed to make yourself successful in the future.

Sit in a management meeting of any commercial business and the talk will be about margin, profit margin, as if it is the most important objective. Sit in many professional service firm management meetings and margin is a rare word to hear – it’s fee income and WIP targets etc. Indeed for most, profit margin is an interesting number arrived at as the by-product of the end of year figures. But a highly profitable business is all about achieving increases in revenue and in margin. Do both regularly and you are flying because you can happily invest for that successful future.

Sugar? Sir Alan Sugar. I recently read his What You See Is What You Get autobiography and got a bit of a surprise. In the seventies (yes, sadly) we all thought Amstrad was a high volume and low margin business (and so there was no way I was going to buy anything they made!). Well it turns out I, at least, got that one wrong. It comes across loud and clear that he determined a good strong profit margin target for every product and wouldn’t budge from it. And he had high volume too. He’d got it very, very right. High revenue and profit margin – happy days! If he can then why can’t most professional service firms?

But... I hear shouts that clients want to pay less for each piece of work so how can you increase margin on it anyway? Well, happily it can be done and there are firms looking at ways to do it. It needs each piece of work for a client to be looked at as a ‘project’ with timescales, resources, working methods and who does what all considered overtly with profit margin in mind rather than just started, carrying on and finished without thought and the outturn numbers viewed on the ‘surprise’ principle. Strangely, as clients ask for different pricing models to the traditional chargeable hour, there can be more room available for the firm to manage profit margin. So there can be a silver lining to this particular cloud. For instance, one of the biggest contributors to unprofitable work is what the military call ‘mission creep’; so practical skills in scoping, organising and managing requests for extending remit throughout the work are important ones.

To manage this well means starting first with decent management information reporting - alongside the traditional numbers - on profit margins which so few firms provide routinely. Slicing and dicing (lovely phrase isn’t it?) financial figures requires a little thought and, when doing for profit margin, can result in arguments on how to allocate non-direct costs - but take the view that it is a consistent and indicative approach that is needed not a perfectionist’s answer that will stand any amount of nitpicking. Once there is a sense of which clients and which types of work are more profitable than others then you can look for reasons why and try to take the ‘good practices’ you have spotted into other clients and types of work which will hit the firm’s ‘bottom line’ and very nicely thank you very much.

There are firms beginning to do this and it will be of no surprise that they will create a feeling of financial ‘headroom’ to invest for the future.

It will also be of no surprise that a focus on profit margin and the skills to address it are included in Firm Beliefs' mini-MBA programme.

And anyway, the book is thoroughly recommended whether you’re interested in business, football managers or The Apprentice!

How do you relay good insights from a recent seminar that never officially happened? Well that's what Chatham House Rule effectively does to you! (We are always being reminded by the wonderful Simon Card that there is no such thing as Chatham House Rules. Just one rule...)

This one was about regulatory risk management and the part played in it by Chief Risk Officers, Chief Executive Officers and leadership. In a world now out of love with "soft touch" regulation, and instead veering towards an invasive approach in search of compliance, risk management is something not to ignore. For the legal profession, add in the Legal Services Act and funding changes - ABSs et al - and you've got increasingly complex problems (or is it opportunities?) for Chief Executive Officers (read Managing Partners ....so I'll use this title from now on) to lead your firm through.

First observation. Unanimously the view was that risk management is the responsibility of the Managing Partner and cannot be laid off to a Chief Risk Officer and promptly forgotten about. The "buck stops here" and all that. The rationale being that regulation risks are those of the business and the bottom line is that the Managing Partner is responsible for the success of the business. A few sighs of "Damn" around the room could be heard - risk management can feel anal at times and does not exactly get the juices flowing.

Second observation. The only way to do it right is for ownership of risk to be at the sharp end as playing catch up via an after-the-event audit group visit never works 100%. The received wisdom was that the practical (or was it pragmatic?) approach to regulation has to be an integral part of operating; not a compliance over-wrapper i.e. partners and associates running matters in line with requirements and having systems in place with solicitors all knowing how they are expected to operate. Another audible "Damn".

Third observation. Good leadership in this arena includes a preparedness to go in and find out "what we did wrong". Not to punish someone (how often does it feel like that?) but to put things right so that it doesn't happen again. Running alongside this was, unanimous again, that Chief Risk Officers have to understand exactly how the operational process works and be able to ask the obvious (but often missed) question. i.e. the Chief Risk Officer has to be a lawyer for legal processes. Yet another "Damn".

Fourth observation. Focus. Rather than having exactly the same regime for every part of the business, look at the high risk parts of your business and install relevant systems, procedures and training. Not too difficult really as any professional indemnity broker and underwriter would tell you.

Last observation. An interesting one as it's not just about regulatory risk management but advice for leaders anywhere anytime. Avoid "group think" at board level and as the leader surround yourself with people who are strong. How often is a strong leader surrounded with people who agree with them and agree with them all the time? Apparently some of the biggest risk howlers have been ‘obvious' when someone else has looked at the management decision with the benefit of hindsight but that no-one spotted the ‘obvious' at the time - either by having the same mindset or by being apprehensive to say anything. But I got the feeling this was not advice that the boardroom should be a warzone.

Finally someone remarked that a leaf could be taken out of the Mafia handbook - "When in doubt do the right thing". Tough people the Mafia - this is not easy at times!

So when I attended an event at which the speaker said to an audience from the charity sector 'Successful charitable fund-raising has much in common with managing a business: It requires leadership, persistence, and creativity'. (quoting David Rockefeller) I could quite understand the irritated response from the audience. 'Duh' said one youngster. 'Why would you say that? We know...'

The use of certain terminology perpetuates a myth that the skills necessary for one are different from those for the other. After all, in what sense is a charity not like a business? Sure, we tend to assume business is used in terms of 'profit making' and charity in terms of 'not for profit'. But the reality is that both organisations (and I much prefer that as a term regardless of sector definition) need to make a profit of at least a pound. The simple difference is what they do with it. So other than semantics, and what they do with their profit, what are the differences?

Many and none. Many differences in terms of culture, values, more or less of a focus on social impact depending on the sector (and even that is changing). But the real lack of difference lies in the skills of those within the organisations. There are good. And there are bad. There are some charities which have highly skilled professional managers; and some law firms where the term professional manager is anathema and thus so is the presence of any! There are law firms where the owners understand far more about the impact on the staff of their actions than the trustees of a charity. So the idea that fundraisers needed to have their skills likened to those of 'managing a business' when "that is so much the statement of the bleedin' obvious (as one of them rather loudly said) so what is your point?" was somewhat surprising.

My feeling, to give the speaker credit, was probably that the reputation of those managing in the charity sector has suffered over the years (not a real job; couldn't cut it in the real world etc, usually unfairly) and that he was simply trying to say 'look, we have more in common across sectors than you think'. But unfortunately, his comment came across as implying that the skills of business were something to be aspired to and that, finally, he was able to help the charity sector realise that they had those same skills... And of course, he used the analogy of business where, frankly, the reputation of managers has not always been of the highest!

I could of course go on. And on. But I shan't. Suffice it to say, I have a meeting with a bunch of lawyers, having spent the day in charity sector world. I may start by telling the lawyers: ' you know, your world of professional services has much in common with fundraising: it requires leadership, persistence and creativity.' (apols to Rockerfeller. I am sure he'd have said that too...)

So, before we sat down to dinner, I did .... to Sara, Deborah and Xenia who all listened attentively and perhaps more importantly, sympathetically, occasionally asking questions to clarify the facts.

I was, at the time, designing a regulatory e-learning programme targeted at about 50,000 employees for a large corporate client. With around 75% of the training content not only written, but the screens designed and already built as well, my client had decided to change the scope of the training from being targeted at all employees to being targeted at managers only. And of course, the challenge was to complete without any delay to the delivery date, and inevitably within the original budget! No wonder it had been one of those days!

This, then, was the challenge that I described to Sara, Deborah and Xenia over pre-dinner drinks, before we had even sat down to the Firm Elite dinner that evening at the Caledonian Club. It wasn't just that they listened to my problem attentively and sympathetically; they grasped the challenge very quickly, but rather than simply nodding and changing the subject, telling me what I should do, or leaving me on my own to find someone else to talk to, in this very informal, very friendly and very 'secure' and confidential environment, they asked me some really great 'coaching' questions, made some observations and shared some insights that made me quickly see the problem from different perspectives.

I didn't leave the Firm Elite dinner with a solution that evening - I didn't expect to! But the conversation lifted my spirits, gave me new hope and put me into a different frame of mind ready to enjoy the evening; stimulating and good humoured exchange of views around sustainability in business, and good food and drink - just the things to re-energise at the end of a long day!

And then, the following morning - almost out of nowhere, but without question arising from something someone had said the night before - a flash of inspiration whilst travelling into London on the underground, (I knew the underground would prove its worth one day), and I managed to turn the whole thing around. Between Bond Street and Green Park, I suddenly found a way of re-positioning the training for the new audience with minimal re-writes to the content and not too much screen re-design, (the most time-consuming and costly part of any e-learning design). And with this flash of inspiration, my passion for the project was as suddenly re-ignited! The client was delighted with the result and, as I write this, the feedback so far from users testing the pilot version of the module is that 'this training is perfect!'

So what do the Firm Elite dinners give me? The chance to talk; the chance to listen; the chance to exchange views, to learn something new, to consider different perspectives, to laugh, and, of course, to eat and drink in good company, and to leave the evening with that strange sensation of being tired after a long day on the one hand, but equally of being so refreshed that I feel ready to tackle the next day with renewed energy, enthusiasm, and humour!

Ken Cohen

that any company, individual or indeed nation would require to make positive changes happen.

The theme of our discussion was sustainability. We were privileged to have the wonderful and charismatic Georgina Stevens of One Pumpkin as guest speaker.

Georgina brought inspiration, experience, passion and charm to the evening as well as outlining the challenges, possibilities and pitfalls of driving through sustainability programmes. And as always the focus was not just on the environmental (the 'old' scope of sustainability) but also on the financial and the social...

Is sustainability on the one hand an orphan child of middle class angst? Which is nice to have if we make it another accessory to modem life while also appeasing our consciences?

Georgina has an impressive biography of success already but we are all fortunate as inhabitants of the planet that she has only just completed the early chapters in her career! Passion, expertise, experience and firm beliefs will be required to drive the changes necessary for all our tomorrows -Georgina has all these elements and a new group of advocates to extol her virtues from this FE dinner.

http://international.lawsociety.org.uk/node/11222

That role varies tremendously. That is the problem.

So do attitudes. Also the problem.

We are finding that there are rarely cases where both (or more) sets of trustees clearly understand their own role and attitudes, let alone the others' role, and the process as a whole is often delayed by a lack of clarity around the role and the attitudes of one or more of the trustee boards.

Regardless of charity sector (dogs, carers, international aid), regardless of size (small charity where trustees ARE the day to day workers; large international charity where trustees rarely meet the employees), regardless of experience of trustees (from the trustee who set up the charity many years ago to the seemingly ubiquitous ‘I donated stacks of cash to this charity and I am a hedge fund manager/banker/business owner...') - there are two clear issues that any merger team must be clear about up front:

1. What role has the board of X charity played so far in its development?

2. What attitude has the board of X charity taken insofar as leading the charity forward thus far?

Because unless these are clear up front, both within X charity itself AND understood by the merging organisation, chaos, delay, uncertainty and even, sadly, failed merger will ensue.

Why the previous role is important:

Has the role hitherto included working with the staff? Charity X Board may or may not have developed a close working relationship with the management/administrative team of Charity X before the merger process. Certainly they will need to do in the feasibility
process. Add to this Charity Y who may also be trying to forge a similar working relationship in whether deciding whether to merge, and you have at least 4 groups who have never worked together before, trying to do so.

Add into this the new Merger Steering Group once things get going and you add yet another group of folk into the mix - reps from the Trustee Board of X and of Y; plus key staff from the Exec teams of X and Y. Whilst still trying to report back to the Boards of X and Y. With all of the cultural and managerial and operational differences in language and approach that such mergers bring.

So an understanding of what role each has
played hitherto is helpful in trying to decide the roles going forward and putting
into place systems and support mechanisms to make sure that all the different
groups work effectively together.

Why previous attitudes are important:

In particular, attitude to change. For many trustees, their approach to change
has been something tested, or not, in their ‘day jobs'. Even if they have gone through tremendous changes in their working lives, they may or may not have been ultimately
responsible for delivering on that change. This may have affected the attitude that the
trustee board as a whole has shown in terms of change for the charity for which
they are ultimately responsible - have they been change averse? Have they been change aware?

And for many, regardless of experience in their own working lives, that may not translate into attitude to change as they merge their charity with another. I think we have all come across the ‘In my commercial role, I have been merged with/lost my job/managed a merger numerous times and this merger for this charity is no different'. Sadly at the moment,
that attitude prevails all too often. No merger is ever the same as another - so attitude to change needs to show an element of humility as well as adaptability to the requirements of this particular change.

There are of course many other issues which affect trustees and their role and attitude during a merger - and many trustee boards we have worked with have shown exemplary approaches to both their role and their attitude. Indeed, the fact that trustees appoint interim independent chairs of merger steering groups to ensure that the merger, not just the interests of the charities, stay at the forefront of the process, regardless of past experience, is to be commended.

So, trustees need to be clear, up front, about the role they have played hitherto, the attitudes they have shown towards change hitherto - that way they can enquire similarly about the other trustee board/s in the merger. Once the differences/similarities are ironed
out, the merger process proper can begin. The courtship that includes a full and frank assessment of one's self, as well as the other, does tend to lead to better outcomes after all. Even if it is, 'no thanks'. Better know that sooner rather than later.

Why intriguing? Well, generally publicity around the Olympics (at least in some of the major cities, including London) has focused on: 1. Why didn’t we get tickets; 2. Infrastructure will be a nightmare, particularly travel; 3. Terrorism will abound; 4. Only the rich will make something from it etc… etc… etc… There has been some publicity around large businesses dishing out a bit of cash here and there to ‘worthy causes’ (usually interpreted by some as a bung for silence or giving up community land in favour of the bigger commercial cause…) and certainly many large sponsors have ‘worthy focused’ websites regarding their Olympic activities (costing a packet to design and nicely branded). However, the chance to really question the extent to which these sponsorships benefit not just the business financially, but also the environment and society as a whole is rare. So I was intrigued as to whether we really could have an open discussion.

As always, we had an engaging table for dinner. We included in our guest plan (places are by invitation only) those who have experience of the Olympics in other countries as well as those who have been involved in large and small businesses; profits and not for profits; and those involved with businesses whose reputations are always of significance given the nature of the contribution that their organisational purpose makes to the money markets, the environment and all elements of society.

What we learnt right away is that every country emotionally prepares itself for the Olympics in the same way – positive focus when the news is heard that the country has won its bid; negative when tickets are not obtained by all seeking them; even more negative when travel arrangements and infrastructure preparations are discussed; gaining more positive momentum when the Games start, with ‘of course I was always in favour of this’ when national medals abound…. So much for the individuality of country responses based on cultural background – we all behave the same it seems!

Thereafter followed a fascinating Q&A plus round table discussion which approached the issue from the multi-angled approach that such breadth of experience of guests always encourages at Firm Elite dinners. Wine flowed; food was eaten; views exchanged; knowledge gleaned. And as always a fair few connections made.

Our discussions are governed by the Chatham House Rule. So I shall not go into the detail. Suffice it to say the position of a sponsor to the Games is a complex one, an advantageous one on the one hand (benefits to the business in terms of exposure to new markets; to new societal issues; to new environmental issues) and a risk in other ways (and the risks to the business come as a result of the same exposures). Like every business today (or indeed any organisation be that for profit or not for profit) the world environment changes (financial, social and environmental) and charting a course through that environment entails both choppy seas and calm waters. Add to that the need to take on board the Olympic ‘dream’ and all the hard nosed business issues that that entails; as well as the risk of being associated with organisations whose sponsorship often throws up the negative associations of the brand (for example the Dow Chemical issue)… Well, why would you? But Jon and others discussed the why would you and why wouldn’t you with realism and insight.

Jon Lane looked remarkably sane, and in control of his brief, given his role. A really engaging plain speaking man who knows his stuff (and sported a wonderful tie which to those of us who judge a man by his tie was very reassuring!). And the conversation was as always informative and insightful thanks to the contributions made by our other guests. We covered politics, the diplomatic service, UN quangos, local authorities, branding and messaging, PR and press, business large and small, passion and fear, energy and stress, negative and positive social, environmental and financial impact – and very much more.

For those who would like to know more about BT and its Olympic involvement, click here.

Our guests that night: Jon Lane, Kehrela Hodkinson, Simon Card, Ann Wittman, Xenia Murray, Andrew Hillier, Imogen Martineau, Diana Marsland, Philip Henson and Sara Dixon. Thank you all.

So we are looking for more Associate Consultants - part-time or full-time. The requirements are challenging. There are after all plenty of consultants around. We turn away quite a few. Unless they have what we look for.

Who are we looking for? Those who have:

1. Experience:

(a) of our sectors

Experience - in the third sector/charity sector but with the need to understand the social impact sector more broadly (profit making organisations with a social purpose where the profits remain in the organisation; profit making organisations with a 'traditional' purpose but with an impact-making focus through financial, environmental and social sustainability programmes, for example)

Experience - in the legal sector, be that law firms or barristers chambers, but with the need to understand the legal services sector more broadly (so not just law firms or chambers but also service organisations generally who offer a legal advice/law management support service, for example)

(b) of management

Be that in-house as an employed professional manager (so with proven skills in the usual business functions) or as somebody who has developed basic management skills as part of their technical role.

Experience as a consultant is not a bar to working with Firm Beliefs - as long as the consultancy role in the past has not entailed 'a one size fits all/model' approach.

(c) of change...

This is critical. The emotional ups and downs; the trials and tribulations; the technical skills pertinent to change programmes in organisations and individuals; the patience needed in terms of project management of programmes entailing change. ETC...

And the acceptance that experience in the past is just the starting point... The world is changing and sometimes past experience just cannot translate into the needs of the future.

2. Skills and knowledge

(a) of business techniques - e.g. HR, Finance, Technology, Operations, Marketing (including comms and stakeholder issues), sustainability around finance and environment and society - plus the usual strategic aspects of organisational development and design. If you specialise in one, there needs to be an understanding of the impact of the others on your specialisation and vice versa - in terms of joined up management.

(b) of the sectors and of the consultancy role

(c) and a demonstrable record of keeping yourself up to date and in touch with latest thinking - and maybe even a bit of future thinking...

3. Attitude

(a) Intrigued by latest technology developments and willing to use it where effective and to support clients to do so.

(b) Inspired by latest thinking generally - and willing to adapt it to make it practical and realistic!

(c) Learning from the others in the team - and willing to share what you know with them.

(d) A positive approach to clients and to supporting them - no matter how tricky or what your experience has been with 'that sector' in the past!

4. Networking and contacts

(a) Experience of office politics, different types of networks and all the foibles that they bring to getting the job done.

(b) A willingness to share your network with clients insofar as it helps the client to develop business and its own network. A willingness to support our Firm Beliefs network of contacts and clients generally - with sharing of ideas and our contacts.

If this sounds like you, do contact: sara@firmbeliefs.co.uk or bill@firmbeliefs.co.uk for an informal chat.

@allenovery. Sara and Gareth attended their excellent Business of Law seminar during March. Whilst that was memorable for its usual high quality, what was more memorable was a conversation which took place beforehand when a member of the Allen & Overy Innovation Board talked about its work. And one of their trainees expressed surprise that it existed as she had not heard of it. Moral of the story - brief all staff about attendees at such events, particularly if involving a connection with the organisation itself.

@LancsGlobalEd. Lancashire Global Education Centre concentrates on working to educate young people and the education sector about global issues. One of the many charities which has relied upon traditional funding but unlike many one which also has relationships with organisations that will pay for the benefit of working with the charity.

@OpEyesight. Operation Eyesight presented at a Canadian High Commission event. An excellent presentation which focused well on the numerous impacts of eyecare in certain countries - financial, social and environmental.

@PHBARGATEMURRAY. Unlike the average lawyer tweeter, Philip Henson looks at the business issues facing his stakeholders and tweets about the impact of employment law on those issues. Rather than tweeting about legal issues and then leaving the reader to apply them to their own situation.

@filippoaddarii. CEO of the Euclid Network - a network of civil society leaders across Europe. Always challenging the status quo and traditional views.

@THEPPAF. Alleviating poverty in Pakistan.

@green_goddess. Caroline Taylor of IBM. Challenges the traditional view that you cannot implement latest ideas in a large organisation. Or that there is no place in a large organisation to develop those ideas in the first place.

@hnesbittltd. How you can take what works in one sector and use it to benefit other sectors.

You can support him here: http://www.justgiving.com/crazy2012

What, you may ask, did they think would never happen?

Well dear Reader, take a breath and imagine... Non-lawyers providing legal services to consumers, or customers, or purchasers. Yes, folks, no longer will qualified solicitors charge clients by the hour, for ‘perusal’, 1/L in, 10/R etc. No longer will a lawyer be able to blame a difficult client if the bill is queried. And hopefully no longer will the word 'sell' and 'services' be a dirty word in some parts of the profession. At least, not without some competition from others who won't show the same disregard for the needs of those purchasing their services.

Take yourself back to 1989 = when I was a lowly articled clerk and my Principal asked me what I was in the building to do, I answered ‘sell our services to people who need them’. Huge intake of (his) breath followed and he boomed ‘young lady we do not sell… we are good enough to provide our professional knowledge to those who are in need of it in return for some recompense’. Huge intake of breath by me for all those years afterwards as I thought ‘lordy, what have I done entering this world of never giving a price that is fixed; never providing a service which can be productised; never being encouraged to get excited about thinking and asking what the clients really need’.

Thankfully for those in the room yesterday there were very few of the naysayers attending – most there were either non-legal professionals or, if they were, they were the ‘savvies’ as we at Firm Beliefs call them. (We stopped categorising lawyers years ago along the lines of magic circle, national, high street etc and started to use ‘savvy’ and ‘non-savvy’. Or even 'going places and investor ready' or 'wouldn't want to invest in the firm myself, bless them'. And a few other descriptors that a professional consultant ought not really to reveal… Our clients naturally are all savvy.)

I recalled the scene some years ago now when I attended the Law Management Section conference at which ‘the men from the RAC/Co-op/large non law firm corporate’ stood up and said ‘We are coming and we will take your business – we are more in touch with our customers’ needs than you are; we will employ your professional staff; and we will take your clients’. The ex-solicitor in me shivered slightly at the time. I remain very fond of those in my old profession and I felt major concern for them. But the management consultant in me, the business person, the entrepreneurial spirit was completely aghast at the majority of the audience who said ‘it will never happen and if they try it they won’t even get it off the ground’. Even then, the words ‘heads in sand’ sprang to mind.

I do not know if the Law Management Section of the Law Society still attracts the same proportion of non-savvies – certainly others used to tell me that the same old names seemed to attend, same consultants seemed to speak the same old warnings, the same words and questions seem to emanate from the same old attitudes. One would hope not by now.

So yesterday, to attend Neil’s Legal Futures event, see the ‘ABSers’ as they are known by some; to see the traditional law firms that had made the changes to move forward in full gung ho energetic flow; to hear the insightful questions and chat going on during the day made me realise even more than before that yes life as we had been told would never happen is indeed happening. Exciting times. Great opportunities. There are legally trained folk out there who can actually be good business people and who can meet head on those who are from other sectors in this new market place – a market place which is bigger than before. Because those who think that law firms retain their traditional market, and that ABSers are entering that marketplace, are wrong – we are now in a whole new market place. A place for all to shop and all to serve. And the non-savvies must compete in that marketplace.

So a step forward. And then… a step back. Yes, the Bar… (by which I mean Barristers, not the venue at the end of the conference where further chat and jollity took place…)

During February 2011 I heard Peter Lodder, Chairman of the Bar, speak at a conference. Although he very much took the trade unionist approach overall – stating his aim to protect his union members from changes afoot (again, slightly concerned at that was I) – he did in fact outline the opportunities, albeit difficult ones involving change, for his members. The Bar could seize opportunities and harness change. So imagine my sadness yesterday when, impassioned advocate for justice and the rule of law ‘which must come first before consumers’, Baroness Deech, Chair of the Bar Standards Board, described a profession (the Bar) in a manner which simply doesn’t ring true any more with those who use the services (sorry – skills and professionalism) of the Bar. There are of course those who will defend the duty to the law and advocacy best practice to their dying day – but most want to make a buck or two and have interesting cases. The fact that, through her illustrations of what she felt ‘the ordinary man’ would require in terms of legal advice etc (how to leave their holiday home in Marbella, sorry Benidorm, in their Will), she demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of ‘the ordinary man’ and what services he might need which simply detracted from an admiration of her gusto in the face of attack from the Ministry of Justice (‘We must avoid control of the legal profession through the Ministry of Justice). I admired her passion to protect a world gone by – but had to keep reminding myself that she is the Regulator of the Bar not even the Union Rep!

So, all in all, a very good conference. Others have written far better summaries of the day, the ABSers, the speakers, the strategies, than I can and I suggest you read this one in particular:

View from Row 3 #lfconf

In the meantime, I shall focus on the steps forward, not the ones back.

@slowfooduk (http://www.slowfood.org.uk/) For me, choosing the food I buy, cook and eat used to take an age. 'Has it been kindly lived and kindly killed?'; 'Does it have chemicals?', 'Is it local?', 'Is it fattening or good for me or even better both!'. I still ask the questions but the answers appear more quickly these days - on the packaging (HATE packaging...), from the vendor/waiter/internet site, and now my own knowledge is greater too. And I used to find cooking took ages too - once I had scraped the burnt bits off the pan from the last time I had used it. These days I have rediscovered my old cookery books, found my old slow cooker, and even plan my menus - the only way, if you travel out and about to clients as much as I do, to juggle a husband, 2 dogs, me and a few rogue rodents, ants and birds and our various food requirements. I try not to feed the rodents and ants of course but they do seem to take without being asked so clearly they have expectations...

I came across Slow Food UK at an @acevo event. ACEVO stands for the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations. I declare an interest in their organisation now (as every good business person who is an ex-lawyer should for governance purposes I guess) and say that I am on their list of approved consultants for those seeking recommendations for folk who can help them take advantage of all the changes that charities face right now. ACEVO has a time significance for me too - regular updates about latest issues in the third sector/civil society arena. And they are on twitter. Such a help. Alerts are short and frequent. Just what I can handle. And not too long so no long turgid e-newsletters to put into my 'To Be Read' folder and which stay there until my quarterly clear out...

As for @legalfutures, well the wonderful Neil provides me with updates about regulatory issues but more importantly enables me to focus legal services clients' minds on issues regulatory, with it all in one accessible place, so that we can get on with issues market growth, staff performance, new business, profit maximisation etc. The problem many traditional (and not so traditional) law firms face is that they drown in the detail (which they love as that is what we as solicitors were trained to take care of - 'take care of the sections and the act will take care of itself'...). And heaven knows the Legal Services Act as an example has stacks of detail. In the meantime, the world moves on and so do clients and so do markets and so do the competition. So the site is worth a daily check: http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/home. Clients need to get their focus right on matters timing - look after the detail but at the same time look after the strategy.... So this site is a quick way of dealing with the detail of the regulatory arena of business.

Finally, @brianinkster. What to say on matters time, timing and speed about this one? Go to: http://brianinkster.com/ And follow him on twitter. Check out his blog: http://thetimeblawg.com/ The main reason I recommend him, apart from the fact that his blogs have time in the title, is that he is to twitter what Firm Elite is to dinners I feel! Our dinners bring together folk who think differently about life, business and the universe and who are always willing to chat with others to challenge, exchange views, have a laugh, a glass of wine etc. Firm Elite dinners and drinks facilitate new thoughts and ways for folk. Brian on twitter seems to do the same, in my opinion, but using social media. A collection of folk come together (no idea if they are on wine at the same time as twitter!) and exchange views, ideas and just general chat. So worth a follow of him I would suggest. And even better many of his devotees are solicitors (Go us! Yes, we may have had respect for wig, pen and ink drilled into us but we can also do typing on a mobile phone with a connection to the ether known as the internet to faceless folk to whom we have not been formally introduced...)

So - there you have it. April's Follow Fridays. For once I have found a theme connecting them all!