Page 40 - MASTER COPY LEADERS BOOK 9editedJKK (24)_Neat
P. 40
Leaders in Legal Business
Change Management
A principal role of a consultant is to help the organization embrace change. There are plenty of good
ideas, but many organizations falter upon execution because of a poorly designed process to engage stakeholders,
or they fail to factor in the how when devising the why and the what.
The chief legal officer for a brand name multinational corporation recently solicited proposals for a
consultant to assist her in reengineering the global legal function. During the open Q&A session with prospective
consultants, she shared that while her deputies were aware of the initiative and had offered their unconditional
support, none would be involved in the process beyond providing access to financial information and easing
access to interview internal stakeholders. Furthermore, her internal clients in business management had no idea
that this effort was under consideration, and their participation was deemed unnecessary to produce a quality
recommendation. We advised that the project was unlikely to achieve glorious success because key stakeholders,
namely the deputies whose organizations would be most impacted by any reorganization recommendation, were
not part of the process and would most likely, if not intentionally, obfuscate any investigation that didn’t confirm
the sensibility of keeping their empires intact. Furthermore, the internal clients, whose service posture would be
disrupted if a new law department organizational chart were to be sprung upon them, very likely have critical
insights that could inform the analysis. She was incredulous, believing that the point of hiring outside consultants
was to avoid distracting internal stakeholders.
An independent consultant can ask questions, interview stakeholders, conduct objective and unbiased
research, and make recommendations without undue political influence. The best outcomes, however, result from
a participatory and cross-functional process in which stakeholders from across the organization are involved;
when there is a clear communication plan about the effort underway that helps those not involved in the details
stay abreast of progress; and when those who are impacted have the opportunity to see both how decisions are
made and what data supports the various conclusions. This is often contrary to the paternalistic mindset employed
by many managers, where information is closely guarded. The rank and file, perhaps via designated
representatives, can often offer insights into the day-to-day operations of an organization that illuminate and often
dispel beliefs leaders have about “how the sausage is made,” and this creates more informed analysis and
acceptance on implementation.
Building a Data-Driven Culture
Good consultants rely on objective data to inform decisions. Even when data are limited, such as
understanding how a competitor’s cost structure impacts its pricing strategy, there is still a framework for plugging
in whatever data are available and assigning a corresponding confidence level. Many legal organizations lack
data. Law departments are beginning to understand the power of analyzing years of electronic billing records to
identify performance metrics and distinguish between reliable and unreliable service providers. Law firms who
have long treated “knowledge management” as a document archiving exercise now embrace cost accounting and
experience tracking in order to better staff and price future services. Even so, data often still take a backseat in
the strategic planning decision framework.
In a recent strategic planning effort for a mid-sized U.S. law firm, there was strong resistance to including
any voices other than management committee members and top rainmakers. The partners felt that sharing any
financial data, revealing any organizational “dirty laundry,” or even exposing strategic deliberations to anyone
outside this group would likely generate disastrous consequences. These partners had yet to learn what corporate
strategists have long known: Insulating those who devise strategy will create an echo chamber. Strong opinions
override sound analysis; political considerations gain undue influence; confirmation bias leads to analysis that
supports existing decisions and minimizes negative input; and, not surprisingly, few decisions are made that will
negatively impact the leaders devising the strategy in any material way.
33
Change Management
A principal role of a consultant is to help the organization embrace change. There are plenty of good
ideas, but many organizations falter upon execution because of a poorly designed process to engage stakeholders,
or they fail to factor in the how when devising the why and the what.
The chief legal officer for a brand name multinational corporation recently solicited proposals for a
consultant to assist her in reengineering the global legal function. During the open Q&A session with prospective
consultants, she shared that while her deputies were aware of the initiative and had offered their unconditional
support, none would be involved in the process beyond providing access to financial information and easing
access to interview internal stakeholders. Furthermore, her internal clients in business management had no idea
that this effort was under consideration, and their participation was deemed unnecessary to produce a quality
recommendation. We advised that the project was unlikely to achieve glorious success because key stakeholders,
namely the deputies whose organizations would be most impacted by any reorganization recommendation, were
not part of the process and would most likely, if not intentionally, obfuscate any investigation that didn’t confirm
the sensibility of keeping their empires intact. Furthermore, the internal clients, whose service posture would be
disrupted if a new law department organizational chart were to be sprung upon them, very likely have critical
insights that could inform the analysis. She was incredulous, believing that the point of hiring outside consultants
was to avoid distracting internal stakeholders.
An independent consultant can ask questions, interview stakeholders, conduct objective and unbiased
research, and make recommendations without undue political influence. The best outcomes, however, result from
a participatory and cross-functional process in which stakeholders from across the organization are involved;
when there is a clear communication plan about the effort underway that helps those not involved in the details
stay abreast of progress; and when those who are impacted have the opportunity to see both how decisions are
made and what data supports the various conclusions. This is often contrary to the paternalistic mindset employed
by many managers, where information is closely guarded. The rank and file, perhaps via designated
representatives, can often offer insights into the day-to-day operations of an organization that illuminate and often
dispel beliefs leaders have about “how the sausage is made,” and this creates more informed analysis and
acceptance on implementation.
Building a Data-Driven Culture
Good consultants rely on objective data to inform decisions. Even when data are limited, such as
understanding how a competitor’s cost structure impacts its pricing strategy, there is still a framework for plugging
in whatever data are available and assigning a corresponding confidence level. Many legal organizations lack
data. Law departments are beginning to understand the power of analyzing years of electronic billing records to
identify performance metrics and distinguish between reliable and unreliable service providers. Law firms who
have long treated “knowledge management” as a document archiving exercise now embrace cost accounting and
experience tracking in order to better staff and price future services. Even so, data often still take a backseat in
the strategic planning decision framework.
In a recent strategic planning effort for a mid-sized U.S. law firm, there was strong resistance to including
any voices other than management committee members and top rainmakers. The partners felt that sharing any
financial data, revealing any organizational “dirty laundry,” or even exposing strategic deliberations to anyone
outside this group would likely generate disastrous consequences. These partners had yet to learn what corporate
strategists have long known: Insulating those who devise strategy will create an echo chamber. Strong opinions
override sound analysis; political considerations gain undue influence; confirmation bias leads to analysis that
supports existing decisions and minimizes negative input; and, not surprisingly, few decisions are made that will
negatively impact the leaders devising the strategy in any material way.
33
