Law Firm 4.0 Blog

Alice died last week. What law firms can learn . . .

If you want to be moved to the core, watch this 11-minute video that is an Academy Award contender for "Best Short Documentary" this Sunday. "The Lady in Number 6" is the story of Alice Herz-Sommer, a 109-year old holocaust survivor and world's oldest pianist.  

More than 70 years ago, she played over 100 concerts in the Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, including all of Chopin's 27 Etudes.

Listen to the strength and lilt of her voice as she talks about how music literally saved her life.  At 109 she said, "Just thinking about music makes me happy." She is the antithesis of tragic, even though her life would be called so - by anyone's standards. Her husband and mother were gassed at Auschwitz.

 

 

 

 

 

Alice 
Herz-Sommer

 

 

 

 

 

 

What can lawyers learn from Alice's story?

Find hope.  Be passionate about your work, your life.  Find things to love that sustain you even when you are feeling tragic and sad.  Surround yourself with beauty.  That will be the inspiration for your vision and strategy.

Alice died last week.  

I am so grateful to have opened this window into her extraordinary life.

 

To win more business, don't underestimate the value of visceral appeal.

For more than two decades we have known that corporate counsel and other buyers of legal services have two levels of decision-making. They make an intellectual decision when creating their short list, evaluating expertise, perceived technical skill, and other features that are important to them - geographical reach, depth, rates and more.

But when they are choosing the one lawyer or firm to hire, they make an emotional decision - formulating do I like this person, do I trust him, do I feel good about him.

Task-oriented lawyers (the overwhelming number of lawyers) struggle with this - they want to be hired because they are the smartest people in the room, not because they are the nicest.  They are frustrated when they have presented what they feel is the most compelling sales pitch about their relevant qualifications that they know are better than the competitors' quals . . . yet they lose to a "less-qualified" contender.

Three Belgian researchers completed a study that analyzed "The influence of ad-evoked feelings on brand evaluations: Empirical generalizations from consumer responses to more than 1,000 TV commercials."  You might wonder why I'm including this in today's blog post - I am, because it reinforces the point that emotion matters more than empirical data when it comes to someone feeling good about you.

If you watched the SuperBowl and stayed for the commercials, you know that the snarky, sleazy ads that have been so popular the last few years were mostly missing.  The feel-good ads that included puppies, horses, America, patriotic music, soldiers and children/families struck a chord with consumers - they made them go "awwww," made them laugh, or cry.

We like connecting emotionally to things, even if we don't want to admit it.  In a Booz & Company Strategy+Business article, The Power of Positive Advertising, the author writes about this Belgian study:   

The authors surveyed more than 1,500 Belgian consumers whose demographics were representative of the country’s overall population. The participants collectively weighed in on more than 1,000 commercials for actual products that were shown on national TV networks during a recent three-year time span. The ads covered more than 150 product categories, allowing the authors to test whether people’s emotional response varied depending on the type of product or service being advertised.

The Belgian study found:

Strikingly, the benefit of taking a positive approach in advertising persisted across industries and endured regardless of the product’s value to a consumer. Whether the commercial advertised a durable item (such as a refrigerator), a short-term product (such as soap or soda), a service (such as a cell-phone subscription or haircut), or merchandise (such as furniture or clothing), the findings were consistent. They showed that “compared to ads that elicit less pleasant feelings, ads that elicit more pleasant feelings may trigger more positive beliefs and thoughts about the brand, which, when integrated into summary evaluations, would result in more favorable brand attitudes,” the authors write.

Given how few business-to-business law firms engage in traditional advertising after the financial crisis, firms are relying instead on their websites, e-alerts and face-to-face business development activities (meetings, speeches, trade shows, etc.).  But few of the nation's largest firms tap into the visitor, listener or readers' emotion, regardless of the media.  Rather, they present a sterile summary of facts, figures, experience and other qualifications designed to land them on the short list.  This is important, by the way - your website must accomplish this.

But, on websites, and certainly in person, this is a missed opportunity to do more. Find ways to humanize your bio, breathe life into your stories and what you write about your practices and firm.  Identify ways to show that you're also nice to do business with. 

Being on the short list is terrific.  But you can only build a career if someone likes you enough to hire you.

 

Want lateral hiring success in your law firm? Focus more on fit.

The failure of laterals to integrate well into their new law firms continues in 2014 as it has in the many years preceding it.  For those firms that share the disappointing stories, the similarities are remarkable:

1. The lawyer came in expecting senior staff (especially marketing/BD and professional development) and lawyers to cater to their way of doing things.
2. The lawyer assumed firm partners would immediately introduce him/her to their clients.
3. The lawyer made excuses for not being more financially viable or productive in year one.  Or, the lawyer blamed others for his/her failure.
4. The lawyer was never a fit.

HBR Blog Network  published a new article called, "For Senior Leaders, Fit Matters More than Skill," that discusses research comparing executive hires coming from outside the organization v. executives being promoted from within.  The HBR research shows how dramatic the problem is:

"Outside hires take twice as long to ramp up as a leader promoted from within. Astoundingly, C-suite executives report that only one out of five executives hired from outside are viewed as high performers at the end of their first year in house. And ultimately, of the 40% of leaders who are hired from outside each year, nearly half fail within the first 18 months."

HBR notes that "the direct and indirect costs of the failures are staggering, far exceeding the cost of the search that found the executive."

Law firm leaders instinctively know this, whether they formally track the sunk cost of unsuccessful laterals.  Unfortunately, too many firms don't assign indirect - or even direct - cost to the resource-consuming unproductive lateral.  It's too painful, because it often takes so long to get them in the door. Once they are on the law firm's terra firma, leaders hope that marketers and partners will rally around them stirring up a flurry of activity that turns into new work and new clients.

HBR studied more than 320 leaders in 36 organizations and found an unexpected answer to the question, why do these executives coming in from outside fail so often?

The answer is: "External leaders fail because they just don’t work well with the people on their teams."

Blogger Jean Martin writes, "We’ve seen this problem before – a new executive arrives at the organization, and a mismatch between his work style and priorities and those of his new colleagues, together with his inability to tap into informal and formal sources of organizational power, prevents him from being as effective in his new role as he was in the last. Within months, he is excluded from key networks and loses valuable information and leverage, quickly reducing his chances of succeeding. Isolation starts the downward spiral of underperformance."

Martin notes that leading companies are changing their hiring criteria, adding "network fit" to skills and cultural fit.  Network fit means how well the new candidate will fit into the working style of his or her new colleagues. HBR research shows that "Hiring for this more colleague-centric type of fit can improve performance at the two-year mark by 30%. It has more than twice the impact of assessing only for general culture fit."

Ingersoll Rand has changed how it defines "executive fit."  Ingersoll Rand noted that while the candidates all scored high on leadership, but had struggled "to apply those skills within the specific dynamics of their new teams and peer groups."  So Ingersoll Rand changed how it was evaluating candidates  and created "four new 'fit categories' — knowledge, values, career experience, and leader behaviors — which in combination produced a more complete view of the executive’s style and how she is likely to approach work."

They have two types of fit -- "conformist," which is the same as the team, and "complementary," which "might be called for when the purpose of bringing in a new executive is to spark some productive disruption in the way the current team is working."

I think one of the most remarkable research findings came from Coca-Cola:  The recruiters are evaluated on and must take responsibility for network fit.  "The company requires them to report to management on not just how fast they are filling positions but also whether the external hire’s performance is up to expectations after they’ve been in role for one year. By reporting this 'quality of hire' performance metric the recruiting team ensures that, in all selection decisions, recruiters and managers ask not just 'Is the individual right for the job?' but also 'Can the individual perform on the job?'"

Companies like Coca-Cola have determined that the in-house recruiters have done a more effective job than the outside search firms - a challenge, indeed, to the external head-hunters.  The research found that companies are beefing up their internal recruiting departments and arming them with the right evaluation tools. This results in a substantial savings (a drop of 40%) in not relying as much on outside search firms.

Firm leaders might think this type of evaluation is overkill for the rank-and-file lateral. But for top rainmakers, practice or industry team leaders, consider broadening your evaluation criteria to focus on network fit.  

Simply, ask the question: Can this lawyer work well with others in my firm?