Law Firm 4.0 Blog

Lawyers: Rethink your bios to meet clients where they are (and win more work)

How do clients buy? By category.

To set the stage for winning more, lawyers have to understand how business-to-business buyers of legal services make their purchasing decisions today. Corporations often segment their work based on:

• Category 1: Volume of repetitive matters (frequently referred to as commodity work);
• Category 2: Important day-to-day matters; and
• Category 3: Strategic, high end, or bet-the-company matters.

Today, they seldom hire one law firm to handle all three of these categories. Similarly, they consciously or subconsciously segment their outside counsel as fit to handle only one category of matters. The leaders of law firms that are in Category 1 want to go up-market, trying to sell Category 2 services to their clients. This is commonly rejected by clients, however, because (consciously or subconsciously) they have erected barriers that are difficult for the law firms to penetrate. Clients have boxed-in their law firms based on their (right or wrong) perceptions of them.

Category 2 law firms really want the plum Category 3 work – the highest end, most strategic matters. With rare exceptions, they won’t get it – and they will waste a lot of time and money going after work clients simply do not want to give them. Strategic planning and diligent positioning can alter clients’ perceptions, but it is virtually impossible to jump categories inside the confines of a client relationship, especially to jump from Category 1 to Category 3. Don’t waste your time. Focus instead on practice management and relationship and process improvements that will make your clients happy and loyal, and that will make the category of work you own as profitable as possible.

How else do clients buy? With emotion. 

For Category 2 and 3 work (and sometimes Category 1), buyers of legal services make their purchasing decisions on two levels. When they are considering hiring lawyers or firms, they create a shortlist of features they can intellectually evaluate – a lawyer’s expertise, experience, jurisdictional background, geographic suitability, fee arrangements, etc. These are all items they can check off a list. But when they are choosing the one lawyer or firm to hire, they are making an emotional decision, where they focus on how they feel about the lawyer – do I trust him? Do I like her? How would I feel if I got stuck on the tarmac next to my lawyer for five hours? Would it be painful? Or a party?

A friendly, familiar, conversational voice is important for your visitor to want to connect with you.

The two-levels of hiring – intellectual/technical and emotional – have been proven for more than 25 years, in thousands of interviews with corporate counsel and senior executives. Lawyers who live in their heads and who have impressive technical resumes may dismiss this research. But then they wonder why, when on the shortlist numerous times, they do not get chosen. This is why: with expertise and qualifications being equal (or perceived as equal), he or she isn’t as likeable as the person who got hired.

Your bio overview.

The first two attributes of Content Pilot's Ten Foundational Best Practice for a Professional's Biography are the following:

1. First 140 characters of the bio are current, compelling and relevant for SEO benefit. Count all letters, punctuation and spaces, and ensure that your most important keywords about your practice are appearing first. Avoid starting your bio like this: John Smith is a partner and chair of the labor and employment practice at ABCXYZ law firm. This is likely what will appear in Google and other search engine results when searching by that lawyer’s name. This information doesn’t move the needle in hiring – don’t waste this valuable real estate on your titles (your titles will appear elsewhere in your bio). Rather, tell what you do.
2. Overview paragraph – the first two to three sentences are descriptive of the work the lawyer does and the types of clients the lawyer represents. After the 140 characters, focus on enriching your bio with additional keywords, such as types of clients, industries, and subject matter strengths. If you are a noted expert in SEC enforcement matters, Family Medical Leave Act claims, or SBICs and BDCs, this is where it should live.

Then, create three-dimensional (3D) bios.

Based on the analytics that we track, more than 40-70% of  visitors are viewing your bio pages. Thus, your goal should be to keep visitors on your lawyer bios longer – and convert visitors to viewing more of them each visit. This is where the cash lives in your firm. Pour an extra cup of coffee and ask your web administrator or marketer to show you the Google Analytics for your website – see how many different lawyer bios any one visitor opens, and check the average length of time a visitor spends on them. Then, focus on improving this number and duration.  You should design and write your bios to accomplish this goal.

In the hundreds of client interviews we have conducted, here is what I have learned about how clients choose their lawyers.  In today’s landscape where competition among attorneys is stiff and it is harder to differentiate one from another, they must provide more insight into why they should be hired. Why are they the expert? What makes them the perfect fit for a client’s problem? You must prove you are the right fit, and there are three ways to do this. I call it “3-D Bios:”

1. Demonstrate expertise
2. Prove relevancy
3. Show humanity

All three “dimensions” must be present for lawyers’ biographies to work hard for them.

1. Demonstrate expertise:
1. Show specific experience: Remember the three questions: What have you done? For whom have you done it? What can you do for me?
2. Include client case studies or stories that prove what you know and your approach to getting things done. This often gets into how you did what you did, not just what you did.
3. Depending on the nature of your practice (for example, if you represent a lot of start-ups or technology companies), include client logos, with their permission, of course.
   
   
2. Prove relevancy:
1. Important keywords that are relevant to your practice should appear in the top 140 characters (characters, not words) of the bio overview. When someone is Googling, or otherwise searching for your name, it is important that the 140–150 characters that show up in the search engine description are those most relevant to your practice – and the expertise that people are buying from you – today. Consider the disconnect for your future buyer if you are supposed to be the expert in global trademark protection and your Google search description does not even mention it.
2. Feed current blog and Twitter posts into your bios. Social media that proves you are current and on top of the subject matter in your practice gives the people evaluating you comfort and confidence in your intellect and grasp of today’s issues.
3. Feature a book the lawyer has written – or something else notable, such as white papers, an important speech, a short video about a trending topic.
4. Design an infographic, which highlights trends in the lawyer’s practice or industry. For example, number of patents in the energy industry over a ten-year period of time, or a US map showing the number of states in which the lawyer has handled litigation.
   
   
3. Show humanity (to get hired, look for ways to short-cut the pathway to trust):
1. New lawyer photos – “magazine-style” (large format) photos that show personality and approachability. Some lawyers do not like getting their photos taken, so they use the same tired photo decade after decade. In today’s world of selfies, where current photos are pervasive, it is critical that the firm website posts current photos that actually look like the lawyers who work there.
2. Include a short video that tells a memorable story about a case and how you handled it. Of course, do not name a client name unless it is public record and you have your client’s permission, but do discuss unique issues or circumstances. For example, did the case come in at 8 p.m. on a Sunday night and the court filing was due Monday morning at 10?
3. Include an “after hours” tab or feature – content that describes the lawyer’s passions outside the office. This can include community board service, volunteer work, travel, sports and events, books you are reading, the fact that you are training for a triathlon, or your family and pets. Show how interesting you are!
4. Prove accessibility – include your mobile phone, assistant’s name/info, your team’s contact names/info (if you aren’t reachable, it ensures that your client has access to team members without you being a bottleneck), and instant messaging contact information. Law firm technology staff will sometimes prohibit instant messaging, but certain types of clients rely on it – and they want their lawyers to use it. 

Read these for strong examples of 3-D bios - congratulations and thanks to Texas law firm Gray Reed for these examples. Note the first-person introductions and the tab called "When I feel most at home," which ties directly to the firm's strategy and tagline, "Feel at home here."

 

https://www.grayreed.com/Our-People/W-Darrell-Armer 

 

 

 

https://www.grayreed.com/Our-People/Michael-A-Ackal-III

If your bios aren't delivering on all these important cylinders, they aren't working hard enough for you. There is definitely a new world order when it comes to hiring lawyers and how it’s done – let us help you position your lawyers so they are exactly in the right spot for future success. 

39 Diversity and Inclusion Inspirations

January 21st was an important day for equity, diversity and inclusion. On that day, we celebrated the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It was also the first day of a series co-authored by Content Pilot's Keith Wewe, “39 Diversity and Inclusion Inspirations” to honor his legacy and to help lead your way – one inspiration for each of the 39 years we were blessed by Dr. King’s life. We encourage you to join the discussion and share your ideas to combat the divisiveness so prevalent in our society today.

It’s up to us to reflect on the gains won during the Civil Rights Movement – and echo them as we address the issues faced by all diverse groups in our industry and society through acts of volunteer service and vigorous action.

Follow the series here.

EDI is the new black

Having high standards for your law firm’s equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is easy. Achieving the results you’re hoping for is hard. There has been more lip service given to this topic than any other in the last decade by law firms and the corporate leaders who hire them. There is a lot of hand-wringing, and we see widespread frustration inside the law firms with their ability to move the needle in measurable ways – and disappointment from buyers of legal services who believe their law firms aren’t trying hard enough.

I am an “expert” in EDI because I am the CEO of Content Pilot, a marketing strategy, design, content and technology company, who wants our office to be highly diverse. Here’s how our numbers stack up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And our age diversity is covered: baby boomers to millennials.

New clients have told us that one of the reasons they hired Content Pilot is because we are so diverse. That’s terrific feedback and it inspires us to work even harder to find the best people that will help us excel – our goal is to create the most high-functioning and creative workforce possible.

Does EDI matter in the hiring of law firms?

With all other qualifications perceived as being equal, does the scale tip to a more diverse law firm by the clients making hiring decisions? As an outside observer, I’d say yes – but it does depend on the person(s) in the company who is making the decision.

Leigh Dance, President of ELD International, works with top corporate counsel around the world and runs a group called the Global Counsel Leaders Circle. We asked her the value of content about a firm’s EDI efforts specifically in proposals and RFPs.  

Leigh says, “Know your buyer. Buyers from any minority group in the US, including all ethnic groups, LGBTQ and those with disabilities will care more specifically about your diversity & inclusion efforts as they make their buying decisions. They’ll want to know your numbers and how you plan to assemble a high-functioning, inclusive team to interact with them and serve them.”

She continues, “In presenting your approach to D&I, the gender, race and cultural diversity numbers/metrics should NOT be presented in a body of text (unless you’re trying to hide them), but very visibly. 

“Aspirational goals also count—check out Eversheds Sutherland’s commitment to reach equality by a certain year. And Accenture and Coca-Cola both have goals in reaching gender-pay parity by a specified year. 

“Be succinct and prove that your firm is really walking the talk. ‘Blah-blah’ about diversity and inclusion sounds like ‘Blah-blah’ to most buyers and just takes up space.

“Today (and I think this will change over time) buyers that are not from a minority group may be interested in a particular firm’s and lawyer’s activities to increase diversity, inclusion, doing pro bono, supporting human rights, etc., from a perspective of social interaction and knowing their advisers’ interests. 

“But that doesn’t enter into their decision-making on what lawyers/firms they ultimately choose, unless the company or legal department has a specific standard on gender-parity and diversity numbers, and then it’s just a matter of reaching the required threshold.”

We know that law firms of all sizes are investing in improving their diversity numbers. But “equity” and “inclusion” are not getting as much attention. It requires honesty, transparency and a broader vision of what a re-imagined firm could look like. 

That’s what we did.

Content Pilot Releases the Full Research Study and Report: "How do they Measure Up? 2016 Global 50 Law Firm Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices"

DALLAS, TEXAS - Content Pilot LLC announced today that it is making public the results of its 6th comprehensive analysis of the websites of the largest law firms in the world, based on Ten Foundational Best Practices.  The 2016 AmLaw Global 50 law firms consist of 40 firms “headquartered” in the U.S., and ten firms in the United Kingdom. 

Content Pilot researchers reviewed 70 attributes for each of the 50 websites for a total of 3,500 total attributes. Websites that launched prior to July 1, 2016 were included in the Content Pilot study.  Prior Content Pilot research studies analyzed the AmLaw 100 firms – done in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2013. This is the first study and comprehensive White Paper that addresses the websites of these global powerhouse law firms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When asked about the results, Deborah McMurray, founder and CEO of Content Pilot, and Research Director for this project said, “There are a few great innovators – firms that have taken full advantage of their recent redesigns to step out of the pack in both design and content strategies. Yet, only one firm scored “Excellent” – Morgan Lewis (www.morganlewis.com), with a score of 85.4.” 

The websites of 23 firms ranked “Good” and the balance of the websites, 26, ranked “Poor.”  McMurray adds, “There is tremendous room for improvement.  Too many websites are broken from a visitor experience standpoint – in fact, most of them are.”

The White Paper, “How do they Measure up? 2016 Global 50 Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices,” is a 120-page in-depth picture of Trends and Insights, Do’s and Don’ts, Stand-out Firms and Results for each of the 2016 Ten Foundational Best Practices. It also includes a two-page infographic, “How Well do the Global 50 Websites Communicate the Firms’ Global Growth Strategies and Messages?” – and a “Global Content Marketing Cheat Sheet” prepared by Leigh Dance, President of ELD International (who also served as Global Advisor to this project) and Deborah McMurray, CEO of Content Pilot.

Law firm leaders in firms of any size will have (1) access to data on how to create experiential pathways and journeys for the visitors they identify as “most important;” (2) a snapshot of how leading law firms are doing and an understanding of how their law firm can better compete in their chosen markets and sectors; and (3) a practical roadmap to view their websites more strategically and plan website investments with an eye toward getting a desired return.

Access the White Paper

Content Pilot is offering this White Paper at no cost. Clients of the company received an early preview of the White Paper and results, and it is now available to access  on the company website, http://www.contentpilot.net/Subscribe.

About Content Pilot

Content Pilot is a leading strategy, design, content and technology company headquartered in the U.S., and as such, it is constantly in search of innovations and best practices inside and outside the legal industry. Its clients are global, national, regional and local law firms and other professional services firms – specifically, people who sell their brains and experience for a living.  Content Pilot has three signature products: websites, proposal centers and experience databases.

Results - 2016 Global 50 Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices – Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

We have finished the 6^th analysis of the world’s top law firm websites based on Ten Foundational Best Practices. The first study in 2005 set precedent by identifying the top ten foundational things law firms must do to ensure their websites were satisfying what visitors wanted.  It was the first full-scale report on how the legal industry was faring with its online marketing efforts, based on an objective analysis of AmLaw 100 Web sites.

Taking a disciplined and rigorous look at more than 60 attributes of EACH of 100 law firms was a herculean effort, but we were committed to do it in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013 and now in 2016.  Over the years, we have made the results broadly available, because we want the industry to improve, for law firms to get more bang for their website buck – and we want law firm website visitors to be happier and your lawyers, ultimately, to be more successful.

In 2016, however, we analyzed the AmLaw Global 50 law firms because we wanted to see just how “global” the Global 50 are.  Stay tuned for the full results of this very interesting Study.

The websites analyzed were those live as of July 1, 2016.  Any new launches after this date were not reviewed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OBJECTIVES OF THIS RESEARCH

We have several objectives in commissioning this research: 

1. Give marketing/business development teams and lawyers objective data to help them justify planning time, expense and “against the grain” recommendations
2. Give the website teams an unemotional, foundational basis for analyzing their current sites
3. Provide specifics to mktg/BD so they can hold their design/development teams accountable
4. Give mktg/BD a framework for measurable improvement in design, interactivity and engagement, searchability, content writing, creating an intuitive visitor experience and satisfying what sophisticated buyers of legal services want in law firm sites.

WHY SHOULD LAW FIRM LEADERS CARE?

Many websites are broken from a visitor experience standpoint – in fact, most of them are.  This research can benefit law firms of all sizes, not just the world's largest. Beyond the enhancement of specific features and functionality that are expected today, global – and other – law firms now have:

1. Access to data on how to create a better and more satisfying experience for their visitors
2. A snapshot of how leading law firms are doing and an understanding how your firm can better compete
3. A practical roadmap to view your website more strategically and to plan your website investments more thoughtfully.

Following the guidelines within the Ten Foundational Best Practices, visitors to your website will:

• Quickly find the information they want and need
• Easily see the differences in strategy, scope, reach and strengths from your firm to the next
• Return to your site to find out more

WHY THE GLOBAL 50?

“Global” is a word that defines the world’s largest law firms. In fact, all of the AmLaw 100 firms boast that they are “global,” as do the Magic Circle firms.  In the past we focused on the leading American-headquartered law firms, but the boundaries between local and international law are fading – and clients of these firms are doing business in hundreds of countries throughout the world.

These law firms have reputations that are built on decades of important client representation and advocacy. The firms at the top of the list are the closest the legal industry has to “brand name” firms. Virtually all of these firms set the standard in the legal industry against which others are judged and evaluated. In every Study since the beginning, we wanted to determine if the website presence of these firms was reflective of the excellence they achieve in other areas.

THE 2016 TEN FOUNDATIONAL BEST PRACTICES (FBPs)

The FBPs are refreshed each Study to take into account foundational changes that have been made in the broad web industry, changes in visitor expectations and the behaviors of buyers of legal services. Certain FBPs have been a part of the Study since the beginning (Communicating your Message, Design, Navigation, Site Search, SEO and Site Hygiene/Usability). Others have been updated (Biographies used to be called “Lawyer Bios” – but there are so many other professionals who are involved in the delivery of legal work and the running of the  law firm, we expanded it) and others have been added (e.g., all references to Responsive Design).

There are a total of 69 attributes within the Ten FBPs, but briefly, they can be described as follows:

1. Communicating your Message – clear and differentiating firm strategy, strengths and focus are apparent, geographic reach
2. Design – bold, distinctive branding, responsive design, intuitive information hierarchy and strong imagery
3. Navigation – global/local navigation are consistent and intuitive across multiple devices  
4. Professional Biographies – detailed experience, an overview that tells a compelling story of the person, current and larger-format photos, social media and other links
5. Content (excluding biographies) -- quality, clarity and organization of narrative content
6. Interactivity, Engagement and Social Outreach – how interactive and engaging is your site? Access to additional content including multimedia, blogs, social media, alumni portals, extranets and share functionality
7. Site Search – it’s about “finding” – easy access to and quality of the multiple site search options and search results
8. Site Optimization & Online Awareness (SEO) – is your site optimized for search engines?
9. Mobility / Responsive – brand integrity is high on mobile devices, intuitive and good user experience
10. Site Hygiene and Usability – site functions perfectly on the latest browsers, no error pages or broken links, site meets the W3C Level 1 accessibility standards.

SCORING

Each attribute is scored on a 100-point scale and each attribute is reviewed and scored separately.  For example, “Professional Biographies” has 10 attributes – each was scored separately. We average all the scores for each attribute to determine the law firm’s score for each FBP.  Once each FBP has its average score, those will be added, divided by 10 and that is the law firm’s total score.

Excellent:            85-100

Good:                   71-84

Fair:                      51-70

Poor:                    26-50

Unacceptable:      0-25

There were ten experienced website researchers who were responsible for one or more of the FBPs. They covered their particular areas of expertise, such as design, content, mobility and SEO. A special thanks to the research team: Doug Stern, Jeremy Ash, Paige Hornback, Keith Wewe, Emily King, Siobhan Davis, Stephanie Stone, Blake Davis, Anna Livia Mazzoni and Deborah McMurray.

2016 RESULTS  

One firm ranked excellent with a score of 85.4 – Morgan Lewis. 23 firms ranked good and 26 firms ranked fair.  This is the first year that no firm has ranked poor or unacceptable.  But more than half of the Global 50 firms ranked fair – there is enormous room for improvement.  The top 10 scoring firms are:

1. Morgan Lewis
2. Winston & Strawn
3. Weil Gotshal
4. Sidley Austin
5. DLA Piper
6. Perkins Coie
7. Squire Patton Boggs
8. White & Case
9. Reed Smith
10. Goodwin Procter

FOR MORE INFORMATION

If you’d like more information or would like to purchase the Summary Insights and Findings Reports for each of the Ten Foundational Best Practices, contact Deborah McMurray at [email protected] or 1-972-897-4921.

STAY TUNED for a lot more trends, findings and interesting tidbits from this 2016 Study.

Content Pilot Announces "2016 Global 50 Law Firm Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices"

Content Pilot announced that it has begun the research for its next study, "Global 50 Law Firm Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices." This is the 6th such study, which focuses on identifying and establishing foundational best practices that matter to visitors, and that, based on client interviews, move the needle with buyers of legal services.

Deborah McMurray (that is, me) created the research in 2005, believing that the legal industry desperately needed a roadmap for improving law firm websites. Law firms were spending millions and millions of dollars on their sites and not making visitors any happier. I analyzed the then-AmLaw 100 firms based on ten Foundational Best Practices (FBP), each which had several defining attributes. These were selected based on broad web industry best practices, known expectations of visitors, and stated goals and desires of buyers of legal services.

After I founded Content Pilot in 2006, I transferred the responsibility of the research study to the company, and hired or recruited subject matter expert volunteers for different segments of the research. After the initial Study, Content Pilot has sponsored the last four AmLaw 100 studies, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2013 – and there have been numerous articles and presentations about the research results for the Legal Marketing Association (LMA), ILTA, ALA, ABA, TerraLex, Lex Mundi and other organizations.  Content Pilot is a strategy, design, content and technology company that serves the legal industry and other professional services firms.

In 2016, we wanted to go even more global and see how the largest international firms are doing, so we are analyzing the AmLaw Global 50. The research will be conducted during June 2016 and the findings will be ready by September 1, 2016. Please email me at [email protected] if you want a free copy of the Executive Summary.

The Ten Foundational Best Practices change with each new study, as do the attributes under each one.  Although there are certain important features and functionality that remain constant from year to year; I have noted those by each FBP below.

The ultimate goal has always been to make visitors happier, have them spend longer on your site and to view more pages each visit.  Ultimately, the goal is for them to contact you with a specific question, issue or opportunity.  Your websites should drive revenue – and adhering to these Foundational Best Practices is one way to help that happen.

The AmLaw Global 50 law firms will be analyzed based on these 2016 Ten Foundational Best Practices:

1. Communicating your Message (in the #1 position on every previous study)
   1.  Clear and differentiating positioning strategy, feel and brand
   2. Practice and industry strengths are easy to see when you land on the site
   3. Geographic reach is obvious
   4. Contact information is easy to find, such as a link on each page
   5. Site features foreign language translations (enough detail in other languages & relevant coherent information)
      
      
2. Design (A part of every study, but the attributes are a mix of repeat and new)
   1.  Bold, distinctively branded layout and style
   2. Strong imagery reinforces and advances the firm brand and “story” - and is fresh and unique
   3. Site is responsive with deliberately designed views for phones, tablets and desktop
   4. The design is uncluttered and presents an intuitive information hierarchy
      
      
3. Navigation (Also a part of every study, but different defining attributes)
   1. Global and local navigation styles are consistent. The visitor doesn’t have to relearn new styles throughout the site
   2. It’s easy to navigate across multiple devices - the navigation remains intuitive and easy to use regardless of device
   3. The site does not use multiple expand/contract features that hide the most valuable content (i.e., experience)
   4. The site has a Global Footer with relevant clickable links
      
      
4. Professional Bios (Formerly called “Lawyer Bios,” but we have expanded it to include other important professionals)
   1. First 140 characters of the bio are current, compelling and relevant for SEO and reader benefit.  Is the reader immediately engaged in the meatiest content?   
   2. First 2-3 sentences of the Overview are descriptive of the lawyer’s practice, the type and size and industry sector of clients represented, and the geography of the practice
   3. Bio does not use Mr. or Ms. - it uses the lawyer’s first or nickname
   4. Photos are current and consistent - they convey personality...the firm’s and the lawyer’s
   5. Full contact information is easy to find
   6. The professional is highly accessible: social media links, email this page, print, vcard, they list their assistant/contact info
   7. Bios crosslink to practices/industries/news/events, etc.  Firms get points off if they list articles, etc. that don’t link.
   8. For lawyers and other timekeepers, bios include detailed experience/matter lists that are well organized with line breaks, sub-heads, etc. Avoids repetition of words and phrases, particularly at the beginning of bullet-points; e.g., Represented, Advised, etc.
   9. Page design supports elegant content organization that enables visitors to quickly scan and consume what they want - e.g., containers, boxes, heads and sub-heads, bullet lists, etc. No long, dense, unbroken blocks of text
   10. Associates and professional staff (such as the CFO, CMO, COO, etc.) have full biographies
       
       
5. Content (other than bios) (The same category as the 2013 Study, but with revised attributes)
   1. The content is visitor-focused - not “it’s all about me” - and is available in multiple languages (note how many languages per firm).  It also faces the client (e.g., describes benefits to the client, not just the firm’s features.)
   2. Page content has a clear information hierarchy and is well-organized for today’s scanning reader (i.e., uses sub-heads, bullet lists, containers and boxes, and the like).
   3. Practices and industries are broken out separately - by the services that clients buy. Geographic regions is a bonus.
   4. Service descriptions include experience specifics, including client locations, names or alias descriptions of clients (answering the questions: what have you done, for whom have you done it and where?)
   5. Video and multimedia content is featured, produced well and short
   6. The landing page for news/articles/events, etc., is well organized and easily sorted by topic, author, date. Nothing is listed that isn’t linked to a details page
   7. The site has a statement of core values that relate to clients, the profession and the markets the firm serves
   8. The site highlights its commitment to diversity and inclusion
   9. Charitable and civic commitment is described and evident. Does it highlight the leadership shown by the firm and its lawyers?
   10. Pro bono commitment is described in detail, highlighting stories and specific matters.
   11. Does the site use every landing page as an opportunity for value-to-client messaging?  For example, does the professionals page say something about the kinds and quality of the people who work there?  Does the contact us page say something about how accessible these people are?
       
       
6. Interactivity, Engagement and Social Outreach (This was added in the 2010 Study, but the attributes continue to evolve)
   1. Client extranet is offered and accessible.
   2. The site includes a link to an alumni community (LinkedIn or a separate website).
   3. Includes a newsletter subscribe feature, event registration, other sign-up opportunities.
   4. Links to firm/lawyer blogs on home page, bios, practice/industry and other relevant pages.
   5. Offers educational webinars, videos, podcasts
   6. Site links to social media sites and has an active/current presence on these sites.
   7. Share functionality is present throughout the site.
   8. Site offers PDF “Binder” or “Build a Brochure” functionality.
      
      
7. Site Search (A part of every Study, but the attributes have evolved as buyer expectations have changed)
   1. Site offers easy-to-find full-site keyword search.
   2. An advanced search link or option appears on all pages and enables visitors to narrow or refine the search in multiple ways.
   3. Search results are clear and well organized, and the most relevant categories (bios, experience) appear first.
   4. The site offers predictive, “did you mean,” highlighting search terms in annotated results, exact phrase searches.
   5. The site offers a separate experience search.
      
      
8. Site Optimization and Online Awareness (Also a part of every Study –  as search engine features change, so do our attributes)
   1. High quality backlinks and link relevancy throughout the site.
   2. Strong, properly structured HTML content on the home page and interior pages (H1, H2, H3, etc. for headings/subheadings, doc type, no image-based navigation or other text, etc.).
   3. There are content feeds from external sources (blogs, social media, videos, etc.)
   4. HTML sitemaps are present and include all pages organized in a clear hierarchy.
   5. Smart URLs with appropriate syntax are used in all sections.
   6. Page titles, meta-descriptions and natural keyword usage are used throughout the site.ww
   7. Images have alt tags that provide alternative text when images can’t be displayed.
   8. Tabbed bio and practice/industry pages all have the same page URL
   9. Utilizes correct schema mark-up throughout the site.
   10. Site speed: Fast page load - less than 4 seconds.
       
       
9. Mobility / Responsive (This was added in the 2013 Study – the question then was simply, “Is there a dedicated mobile site?” The AmLaw 100 average for this FBP in 2013 was 34.5 – some of the mobile sites were so poor that they scored low, even though the firms had them.)
   1. Brand integrity/personality is not lost on smaller devices.
   2. The user experience is superior regardless of device.
   3. There are intuitive, well-spaced navigation tools.
   4. Content and images resize correctly and information hierarchy is maintained.
   5. Mobile site is available in non-English languages - with the ability to return to English.
      
      
10. Site “Hygiene” and Usability (This has been the 10^th FBP since the very beginning, but the attributes have blossomed a bit since the 2013 Study.)
    1. Site functions perfectly on all the latest browsers.
    2. No error pages are found on spot check.
    3. No broken links or images are evident with spot check.
    4. Pages print and email easily.
    5. The site offers dynamic print to PDF option on most pages.
    6. Content has been checked for spelling.
    7. All appropriate domains are active, including https.
    8. The site meets the W3C Level 1 accessibility standards.

SCORING

Each attribute is scored on a 100-point scale and each attribute is reviewed and scored separately. For example, Site Hygiene and Usability has eight attributes - each will be scored, and then we will average those scores to get the total score for that Foundational Best Practice. Once each FBP has its average score, those will be added together, divided by 10 and that will be the law firm’s total score.

The scoring methodology and ranges have remained the same since the original 2005 Study.

• Excellent: 86-100
• Good:       71-85
• Fair:          50-70
• Poor:        26-49
• Unacceptable: 0-25

You might be interested in how law firms have fared in past studies -- not great, is the short answer.  The AmLaw 100 firms in the past five studies have had a lot of room for improvement. In the 2013 Study:

• 2% of the firms scored "Excellent"
• 23% scored "Good"
• 69% scored "Fair"
• 6% scored "Poor"
• And, no firms ranked as "Unacceptable"

We have our fingers crossed that the Global 50 websites will perform much better in the 2016 Study!

Special thanks to Leigh Dance, President of ELD International, who is serving as our global advisor.

Richard Hsu connects with lawyer (a/k/a) celebrities in a unique way (Hsu Untied)

Writing my first blog post in 2015, I wanted to choose a topic that would have broad appeal.  I've written about technology/IP/M&A lawyer Richard Hsu several times.  The first time was nearly three years ago when I first read his definition of strategy. I'm including it here, because every New Year should start out with the hope and opportunity associated with smart strategy.

...On the other hand, technology strategy is not technology.  It is strategy.  And strategy’s half-life is more like plutonium:  what worked a thousand years ago works today, and will work in a thousand years....  Invest in understanding strategy now, and you will understand it just as well — probably even better [in the future.]  

This is part of a larger discussion about technology strategy, but it applies to every administrative department, capital investment or area of law in the law firm.

 

 

 

 

 

Richard is my favorite lawyer blogger, which is saying a lot given the thousands of them who pen posts about late-breaking developments in the law.  His "Hsu Tube" is also known as the "One Page Blog" - and therein lies part of its appeal.  He has mastered concise, and the art of effective and differentiated communication through clever animated illustrations drawn by his daughter, Maya. He narrates legal topics, such as "Handling IP Assets in M&A Transactions," while Maya proves that the maxim, "a picture is worth a thousand words," is true.  Her illustration style is similar to what you'd see in "Diary of a Wimpy Kid."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you will also see on Hsu Tube, is Richard's latest offering, "Hsu Untied," a series of podcast interviews he conducts with lawyers about their burning passions and hobbies outside the office.  If you have some time on your hands, listen to the 31 episodes - each podcast is 10-16+ minutes long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Recent podcasts have included:

1. Drew Shoals*, the drummer for the Grammy Award winning band, Train.  Drew had previously played with the lead singer of Train, Pat Monahan, prior to going to law school.  Despite having a successful legal career at Shearman & Sterling, when he got the call to join the band, he couldn’t say no. 
   
   https://soundcloud.com/hsu-untied/dshoals

2. Wayne Brown, Deputy General Counsel and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Quest Diagnostics, who is a tournament chess player.  Wayne has a chess rating of “Expert” (top 5-10% of all tournament players) and has played competitive chess his entire life – in fact, he cannot remember a time when he did not know how to move the chess pieces.  Wayne discusses his lifelong passion for chess, including his favorite chess openings and how he started beating his dad when he was just in the 7th grade! 
   
   https://soundcloud.com/hsu-untied/wbrown
   
   
3. Liz Stone, a former litigator and now legal recruiter with the Dubin Group, who is also a standup comedienne.  Liz actually started doing “stand-up” after a couple of friends noticed her performing a wedding speech and after doing many “open mics,” she now performs at clubs like the San Francisco Punchline and Cobbs Comedy Club.  Although she enjoys what she currently does, she admits there is nothing more exhilarating — or terrifying — than trying to make an audience laugh. 
   
   https://soundcloud.com/hsu-untied/lstone

Richard shows us that successful lawyers are often well-rounded and interesting - and that they have a lot to talk  about that doesn't relate specifically to the practice of law.  

Let's get more of them talking.

Happy New Year!  Thank you for reading my blog!

 

Still buzzing about the 2014 Futures Conference at Suffolk Law School in Boston

If you want a running commentary of the 2014 Futures Conference, search for #COLPM2014 on Twitter. It's an excellent, real-time, meat-of-the-matter summary of the six TED-style talks, Tom Sager's keynote, our ten facilitated breakout teams and their "Shark Tank" presentations to our judges.  The program was designed around innovative thinking - and there was plenty of it.  In fact, there was little time or room for today's ideas, because every session was focused on tomorrow.

Before I share this guest post from Jordan Furlong, which was originally published on the Attorney at Work blog, I want to thank several incredible people who brought ideas and thoughtfulness, vision, sweat and brilliant execution to this year's Futures Conference:

• Fellow co-chairs Lisa Damon (partner and National Chair of Seyfarth's Labor and Employment Department) and Susan Duncan (President and Founder of RainMaking Oasis) - it was an honor to work alongside these highly respected professionals and industry leaders. I learned a great deal from each of them.

 

 

 

 

 

2014 Futures Conference Co-Chairs Lisa Damon, Susan Duncan and Deborah McMurray

 

 

• College of Law Practice Management 2014 President Ron Staudt (Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Access to Justice & Technology, Chicago Kent School of Law) and President-Elect Maggie Callicrate (Chief Operating Officer of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP). They brought reason, objectivity and leadership as we sought to create an event that not only served the College, but the legal industry.
  
  
• 20 facilitators who led rigorous, time-sensitive discussions comprised of 10-12 conference attendees that were also all smart, successful, comfortably verbal, pushing-the-envelope thinkers. Each team was tasked with designing and pitching an innovation (product, service, program or curriculum) to our fantastic Shark Tank Judges, Susan Hackett (CEO, Legal Executive Leadership), Josh Kubicki (Transformation Institute) and Chris Marston (Founder and CEO, Exemplar Companies).

"Shark Tank" Judges Josh Kubicki, Susan Hackett and Chris Marston

 

 

 

Our gifted facilitators included: Ida Abbott, Pat Lamb, Beth Cuzzone, Ron Friedman, Leigh Dance, Dave Hambourger, John Mayer, Catherine MacDonagh, Merry Neitlich, Catherine Moynihan, Karen MacKay, Jordan Furlong, Elonide Semmes, Marc Lauritsen, Steve Nelson, Silvia Silverstein, Andy Perlman, Silvia Coulter, and Mark Tamminga and Terri Gavulic.

• Our Keynote, Tom Sager, who after his storied career leading the DuPont legal department is now a partner at Ballard Spahr, and our six TED speakers:  Jeff Carr, former GC of FMC Technologies; Abe Geiger, CEO of ShakeLaw; Ron Staudt; Ron Dolin, Legal  Technologist and Fellow, Instructor of Law, Stanford University; Carla Goldstein, Associate GC and Director of Strategic Initiatives, BMO Financial Group; and Michael Mills, President and Chief Strategy Officer, Neota Logic.  
  
  All speakers provoked us and prodded us to quickly leave any complacency behind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TED speaker Abe Geiger, CEO, ShakeLaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Finally, special thanks go to new College of Law Practice Management inductee Andrew Perlman and Suffolk University Law School for being an extraordinary partner in our conference planning and execution.  Andy (professor of law and Director, Institute on Law Practice Technology and Innovation), this school and its students are inspiring, hopeful, hard-working and visionary. Andy was deeply involved in our planning, Suffolk hosted the conference, handling on-site special requests and last minute alterations. The facilities, faculty and students are all impressive.

 

 

 

 

Professor Andy Perlman and the winning Shark Tank team

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to Jordan Furlong and Attorney at Work for this guest blog post that effectively captures Futures Conrference highlights.

The College of Law Practice Management’s 2014 Futures Conference gathered more than 100 of the world’s leading authorities on the evolving practice of law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and set them to work. Here are my five key takeaways from the year’s most impressive legal market conference.

1. The Trailblazer. Leading off the conference was keynote speaker Tom Sager, the legendary general counsel of DuPont who pioneered the DuPont Legal Model for anticipating, managing and executing his company’s legal issues. Sager, who recently stepped down from his longtime position to join Ballard Spahr, recounted the origins of the model and its core metrics (KPIs, compliance, efficiency and “best in class” status) that still resonate today.

Sager emphasized the model’s “fixation and focus” on using metrics, necessary to provide data that prove innovations are working and to lend credibility to the in-house team’s efforts among skeptics in the corporation. Today, the model has evolved to incorporate new DuPont Legal Lean Six criteria: agility, productivity and what Sager called specificity (which includes defining value, measuring outcomes and reducing risk).

It was startling to realize that Sager’s efforts began in 1992, virtually the Mesozoic Era in the development of sophisticated legal practices and processes. The DuPont Legal Model had virtually no competition for years, something that should remind today’s NewLaw providers that isolation is often the cost of innovation in this industry. And Sager had a sharp warning for the legal profession generally: “Non-lawyers” are poised to outnumber lawyers in legal market change discussions, and are critical (along with non-practicing lawyers) to the communication and effective implementation of new systems.

2. The Innovators. Three of the conference’s speakers demonstrated where the trail Sager helped blaze is leading. Abe Geiger, CEO of tablet-based contract sensation Shake, talked about the immense potential of “TinyLaw,” transactions that fall below the financial threshold for lawyers’ attention. He is squarely focused on consumers of legal products and strives to make everything “faster, cheaper, easier and prettier” for them. (The last is no joke: Shake takes user design seriously.) Geiger talked about “leapfrog” technologies that allowed modern users to access legal services in nontraditional ways. “If we can scale what lawyers do [and] use tech more effectively,” he said, “[there’s a] huge market that could be serviced, if the model was better.”

Michael Mills, CEO of Neota Logic, was perhaps the conference’s most frequently invoked name, as his expert application for answering legal and regulatory questions was adopted by many brainstormed startups (see No. 3 below). Expert systems, Mills explained, are everywhere, including the deceptively simple computer programs that do your taxes for you. Law is a series of rules, and rules can be coded. Why should we code law? Mills’s answer: Because it’s simply wrong that there is such a vast unmet need for legal services. Machine learning and predictive coding in e-discovery are only the beginning of technology’s impact on the legal system: Law is the ultimate digital product, and this will be borne out in time.

William Palin, a family lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., and a recent graduate of Suffolk Law School, made the biggest splash with a demonstration of PaperHealth, an iOS app that he built for creating a binding health-care directive on a mobile device. Palin, whose self-taught coding expertise was only months old when he created PaperHealth, won the ABA’s first Legal Hackathon (also held at Suffolk Law this past August) and is hard at work on more applications. The audience, made up of many of the leading lights in law practice management, was visibly impressed with the ease, speed and simplicity of PaperHealth (available free in the App Store).

3. The Shark Tank. The organizers of this year’s Futures Conference (Lisa Damon of Seyfarth Shaw, Susan Saltonstall Duncan of RainMaking Oasis, and Deborah McMurray of ContentPilot) hit the creativity jackpot. They divided attendees into 10 breakout groups and directed them to come up with ideas for an innovative new product or service to improve the effectiveness of some aspect of legal services delivery. Even better, waiting for the groups was a team of “Shark Tank-style” judges — Susan Hackett of Legal Executive Leadership, Josh Kubicki of the Legal Transformation Institute, and innovative Boston lawyer Christopher Marsten — ready to deal out real-world skepticism.

Many of the groups, completely independent of each other, came up with solutions to improve access to justice for lower- and middle-income people who cannot afford a lawyer’s help. These ranged from consumer-accessible kiosks to triage-style lead generation to a diagnostic tool to identify unrecognized legal needs. The judges rightly questioned many of these ideas on the grounds of financing issues, lawyer-centrism, or simply creating more work for an overburdened system. These reality checks, delivered with an unusual degree of directness, represented a refreshing change from the usual “brainstorming” of lovely ideas that wouldn’t really function in the real world.

The winning entry was an original solution to an under-publicized problem: the massive shortage of translation services in courthouses. The Courthouse Online Real-Time Translation Service, as presented by group spokesperson Prof. Andrew Perlman of Suffolk Law, offered a realistic solution by way of remote access to translators who could patch in to a hearing and provide translations effectively and affordably. The runner-up prize went to an initiative called Tenant Storm, an online service for tenants that combined landlord ratings, regulatory compliance and dispute resolution in an accessible package for the underserved landlord-tenant area of law: “Zillow” plus legal information and compliance, as presenters Liam Brown of Elevate Legal Services and John Alber of Bryan Cave described it.

4. The Host Law School. Suffolk University Law School became the latest legal educator to host the College’s Futures Conference, and its first appearance in the role seems unlikely to be its last. The school took the opportunity to showcase for the high-powered audience some of its many efforts to rethink and reconfigure the legal education process. (Disclosure: I hold the position of Legal Strategist in Residence at Suffolk Law and, along with Marc Lauritsen of Capstone Practice Systems, serve as Co-Chair of the school’s Institute for Law Practice Technology and Innovation. Marc and I each teach a course at Suffolk: Lawyering in the Age of Smart Machines, and 21st-Century Lawyering, respectively.)

Dean Camille Nelson addressed the attendees concerning the school’s focus on filling both the practice gap (between law school and law practice) and the justice gap (between everyday consumers and the legal system). Assistant Dean Ilene Seidman described Suffolk’s Accelerator to Practice Program, a three-year course of study and practice that prepares grads to join or start law practices that serve average-income individuals and families. The program actually includes a fee-generating law firm within the law school to train students to be competent lawyers within three years.

Prof. Perlman, who heads the LPTI Institute, reminded the audience that very little has changed about legal education since the days of Christopher Langdell: “We still train law students to look backward, for bespoke legal work; that’s not how most legal services are delivered today.” In addition to the school’s other projects, the Institute partnered with Kia Motors in-house counsel D. Casey Flaherty to create an online and widely available version of Flaherty’s Legal Tech Audit. (Versions for legal businesses and a free version for law schools are available here.)

Next year’s host, Chicago-Kent College of Law, looks ready to take the baton from Suffolk and continue to further and publicize the legal education reform process

5. The Focus on the User. Most legal conferences, perhaps unsurprisingly, are about lawyers, even those that are geared toward anticipating and adjusting to the future. The standout feature of the 2014 Futures Conference, for me, was the unrelenting focus on legal system users, including both current clients and potential recipients of legal assistance. Lawyers are positioned as one source, perhaps even the best and most appropriate source, of legal services, but by no means are we the only one (and, as I’ve argued recently, perhaps a far more peripheral source than we like to imagine).

The advantage of the Shark Tank format was not only to challenge attendees to come up with solutions to improve user access to and experience with the legal system, but also to put those ideas through rigorous testing. We’re now past the point when good ideas and good intentions are good enough to make the legal system more useable; we need to start shipping. We need working deliverables, right now, to make the present system function more effectively and to throw open the doors to that system and welcome many more people and businesses than it can currently accommodate. The skeptical demands of the Shark Tank judges reflect what should be a greater level of rigor within the profession about what needs to be done.

From Tom Sager’s keynote through the presentations of guest speakers to the many suggestions for better legal systems from the attendees, the relentless focus of the 2014 Futures Conference was on the client, or the buyer, or the user, or the untapped market of legal needs and opportunities. That perspective was powerful, valuable and overdue. Here’s hoping we get much more of it in the months and years to come.

Jordan Furlong is a lawyer, consultant and legal industry analyst who forecasts the impact of the changing legal market on lawyers, clients and legal organizations. He is a partner with global consulting firm Edge International, a Senior Consultant with Stem Legal Web Enterprises, and a Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. His blog, Law21, has been named six straight years as one of the top 100 legal blogs in North America by the ABA Journal.

 

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? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you want to work for a man or a woman? New Gallup poll says "a man."

After seeing Meryl Streep's always-brilliant performance and her utterly withering glances at her less-than underlings in "The Devil Wears Prada," I remembered back a few years to an unhappier time in my professional life. The source of my despondency wasn't entirely a woman to whom I reported, but she played a prominent role. She was a smart, beautiful, icy, duplicitous and manipulative person whom I desperately wanted to please and believe.  She proved time and again that she wasn't trustworthy - or even nice.  She was a mean girl. But she was my boss.

If you would have asked me then if I preferred to work for women or men, I would surely have said, "men."

Gallup released its annual Work and Education Survey poll results in November that found:

"If Americans were taking a new job and had their choice of a boss, they would prefer a male boss over a female boss by 35% to 23%, although four in 10 would have no preference. These attitudes have not changed much in recent years, but when Gallup first asked this question in 1953, 66% of Americans preferred a male boss, while just 5% preferred working for a woman."

Given the enormous inroads I feel women have made in the workplace over the last few decades - and certainly the legal industry - I found the following statistic the most startling:

"The proportion of Americans who prefer a female boss has increased by 18 percentage points over the past six decades . . ."

Wait - only 18 percentage points in six decades??!!  As a woman who employs several highly diverse women and men, I hope that I would skew these results to a much higher percentage.

Here are some other findings - key differences in preferences for male or female bosses across subgroups:

• "Both men and women prefer a male boss. More than half of men say the gender of their boss makes no difference, but those who have a preference favor a male boss by an 11-point margin. Women are more likely than men to have a preference, with higher proportions expressing preferences for each gender of boss, though women choose a male over a female boss by a 13-point margin.
• There are some differences by age, with Americans between 35 and 54 the least likely to prefer a male boss. Younger Americans are generally not more likely than average, or less likely, to prefer a male boss.
• Political partisanship significantly predicts attitudes toward the gender of one's boss, with Democrats essentially breaking even in their preferences, while independents and Republicans prefer a male boss.
• Americans of all education levels prefer a male boss, by margins ranging from seven to 14 percentage points."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gallup notes that more women currently work for other women, and the preference of those employees is to continue working for women.  They also suggest that among all the workers in the survey, more work for men - so it might be natural to assume that they would like to continue working for men. 

Joan C. Williams, a Harvard Business Review blogger, when reporting about this survey wrote: 

. . . [Women] "may have experienced workplaces where gender bias pits women against other women, a pattern The New Girls’ Network calls the “Tug of War.” An important 2010 study of legal secretaries by law professor Felice Batlan illustrates this dynamic, as does my own research. Batlan surveyed 142 legal secretaries and found that not one preferred to work for a woman partner (although, importantly, 47% expressed no preference).

Why did many secretaries prefer male bosses? Simple: they aren’t dummies. In most law firms, most people who hold power are men. Women stall out about 10 to 20% of the time in upper-level management in professional fields like business and law, so if you’re aiming to hitch your wagon to a shooting star, men are a better bet. This is one way gender bias pits women against women.

Another is when women stereotype other women. “I just feel that men are more flexible and less emotional than women,” one secretary said, while another described women lawyers as “too emotional and demeaning.” The stereotype that women are too emotional goes back hundreds of years.

But “demeaning”? That’s interesting. Her boss may just be a jerk — some people are — but perhaps she was just busy. While a busy man is busy, a busy woman, all too often, is a bitch. Because high-level jobs are seen as masculine, women need to behave in masculine ways in order to be seen as competent. But if they behave too much like men — watch out.

This no-win situation fuels conflict between women who just want to be one of the guys and those who remain loyal to feminine traditions. “Secretaries are expected to engage in traditionally feminine behavior such as care giving and nurtur[ing], where[as] women attorneys are supposed to engage in what is stereotypically more masculine behavior. Given these very different expectations and performances of gender that occur in the same space, the potential for conflict is enormous,” Batlan concludes. Indeed, many professionals find themselves expected to do what Pamela Bettis and Natalie G. Adams, in an unpublished paper, call “nice work”: being attentive and approachable in ways that are often time-consuming and compulsory for women but optional for men.

Conflict also erupts due to Prove-It-Again problems: women managers have to provide more evidence of competence as men in order to be seen as equally competent. This pattern again pits women against their bosses. 'It would seem as if female associates/partners feel they have something to prove to everyone,; noted one secretary. 'Females are harder on their female assistants, more detail-oriented, and they have to try harder to prove themselves, so they put that on you,' said another."

Joan Williams and her daughter, Rachel Dempsey, have written a book called, "What Works for Women at Work" that will be available January 2014.  They interviewed 127 women (more than half are women of color) at the top of their fields in what is called a "ground-breaking study."

It sounds like a must-read.