Page 157 - Leaders in Legal Business - PDF - Final 2018
P. 157
whether to hire another paralegal. Further, assume that the partners disagree. Their decision will
improve if they marshal relevant data, analyze it effectively, and apply it to their discussion.
How can numbers help them objectively think through the problem and potential solutions better
than they would have without? Here are five ways.
1. Sidestep Cognitive
Fallacies.
Data can counteract many
of the cognitive biases that afflict
decision-makers. Often we are
unaware of the gremlins in our
minds that attack what we
believe to be our clear-headed,
balanced evaluations. Consider
four well-known cognitive
fallacies and how data might
correct for them:
Framing: An antidote to framing
could be benchmark data on
paralegals per lawyer in firms.
Salience: To blunt its potential
impact, someone could gather
articles that report average lawyer/paralegal ratios based on surveys of many companies.
Confirmation bias: Perhaps the partners’ practice group submitted the mixed evaluations on a
survey of paralegals, which would be data that challenges a one-sided view.
Risk aversion: A risk-averse partner may argue for more paralegals because the group never
wants to be over-extended; past data on large bumps in hours might dispel the concern.
2. Uncover and Query Empirical Assumptions.
When people make decisions, they often neglect to articulate the factual assumptions on
which they base them. Worse, they may not even realize that they have been motivated by
unstated (and usually untested) beliefs about how common something is or how much there is of
something measurable. For example, one partner might accept on faith that lawyers will delegate
work to paralegals, while another could trust without verifying that it will be easy to find, hire,
and retain capable paralegals. If underlying assumptions such as these are not identified and if
there is no data either way, decisions will likely be weaker (and take longer).
3. Disrupt Entrenched Convictions.
143
improve if they marshal relevant data, analyze it effectively, and apply it to their discussion.
How can numbers help them objectively think through the problem and potential solutions better
than they would have without? Here are five ways.
1. Sidestep Cognitive
Fallacies.
Data can counteract many
of the cognitive biases that afflict
decision-makers. Often we are
unaware of the gremlins in our
minds that attack what we
believe to be our clear-headed,
balanced evaluations. Consider
four well-known cognitive
fallacies and how data might
correct for them:
Framing: An antidote to framing
could be benchmark data on
paralegals per lawyer in firms.
Salience: To blunt its potential
impact, someone could gather
articles that report average lawyer/paralegal ratios based on surveys of many companies.
Confirmation bias: Perhaps the partners’ practice group submitted the mixed evaluations on a
survey of paralegals, which would be data that challenges a one-sided view.
Risk aversion: A risk-averse partner may argue for more paralegals because the group never
wants to be over-extended; past data on large bumps in hours might dispel the concern.
2. Uncover and Query Empirical Assumptions.
When people make decisions, they often neglect to articulate the factual assumptions on
which they base them. Worse, they may not even realize that they have been motivated by
unstated (and usually untested) beliefs about how common something is or how much there is of
something measurable. For example, one partner might accept on faith that lawyers will delegate
work to paralegals, while another could trust without verifying that it will be easy to find, hire,
and retain capable paralegals. If underlying assumptions such as these are not identified and if
there is no data either way, decisions will likely be weaker (and take longer).
3. Disrupt Entrenched Convictions.
143
