Law Department Management Blog

Consider this counter-intuitive point made in Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton, Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management (Harvard Bus. School Press 2006) at 47: “Process improvement programs like Six Sigma and TQM [have] been shown to drive out errors and improve efficiency, but also to stifle innovation.” The quote cites a 2003 article, but does not explain the comment on stifled innovation. Perhaps this has to do with process improvement techniques ossifying a process; or that when you start quantifying and dissecting a process you draw back from thinking about change?

Perhaps when a methodology is applied by a law department the rules squeeze out and deter original thinking (See my posts of Jan. 10, 2006 and Sept. 4, 2006 on methods to prime the creativity pump.). The scrutiny looks backward rather than peers forward. Follow the “LeanTQMSigma” recipe, don’t freelance and vary the meal.

Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton, Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management (Harvard Bus. School Press 2006) at 178 offers advice on the four most important actions that a manager needs to take to change others’ behavior. Being a fan of mnemonics, I relabeled the last two so senior managers can remember the Four Ds.

Dissatisfaction: People in the law department need to be disgruntled or worried about what’s happening. “Our filing system stinks.” Or perhaps, “We’d better cut outside counsel costs or someone will cut our headcount.”

Direction: People in the law department need to know where the change process is heading. “Relentlessly communicate what the change is, why it is necessary, and what people ought to be doing right now with as much clarity as possible.”

Doubtless: People in the department need to see their general counsel as confident. Leaders of change need to convey faith in the value and achievability of the new direction; they need to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, even as they allow for questions and new information that might refine the direction taken.

Dirty: People need to accept that change is messy and can’t be completely planned and cleanly executed. “Treat glitches as a normal part of the change process, learn from them, assume that everyone has the best intentions, and focus on how to fix the problem instead of whom to blame.”

A fascinating book, Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed (Penguin Books 2005) at 13, distinguishes between the proximate cause of an event and the ultimate cause. The proximate cause is the one you notice; the ultimate cause may be broader, more subtle, or take longer to bring about its effect. To illustrate the difference in a law department, mull the causes of a higher-than-average turnover rate.

The proximate cause for the departure of several lawyers, the one identified by them in exit interviews (See my post of Aug. 24, 2005 on exit interviews.) might be compensation, but the deeper, ultimate causes might be the poor profitability of the company or the leadership ineptness of its senior executives. In other words, what appears on the face to be the immediate problem may be the result of deeper, less apparent forces (See my post of Aug. 30, 2006 on systemic problems compared to individual shortcomings.). Don’t stop if you think you’ve trapped a proximate cause; keep hunting for the ultimate causes

Permit me a moment of snarkiness. Does everyone cringe when affronted with a platitude for management (See my post of Aug. 3, 2005 that savages “alignment with clients.”)? Here are a handful of other fortune-cookie pronouncements that sound sage but aren’t worth the thyme.

Structure your law department to optimize efficiency.
Keep layers to a minimum.
Design reporting lines to promote productivity and knowledge-sharing.
Locate lawyers where they best serve the company.
Align your structure to best serve your organization.

It’s not that these faux profundities are wrong, it’s that they apply to any law department and no one of sound mind would controvert them (See my post of Aug. 3, 2005 on mission statements that giddily repeat nostrums.). Often, like hoary sayings, they contradict each other: “choose the best firm for the matter” butts heads with “concentrate your outside counsel spend on a few firms.”

Platitudes also lack operational specificity. “Retain the best law firms for the lowest cost” can’t be denied as sound advice, but how does a general counsel do it or prove it? Fortune-cookie recommendations may sound useful at first bite, but they do not tell you how to spot trouble, evaluate cures or develop alternatives.