Page 139 - 2019 - Leaders in Legal Business (q)
P. 139
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.
124
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.
124
