Legal Management

Recent Posts

  • Creative Ways to Define Your Market
  • Strategy Made Simple
  • The Emotional Cost of RFP
  • Why General Counsel Call on Law Firms
  • Reporting Lines
  • Why Don't We Work More for You?
  • Looking for a Market Opportunity?
  • High End Commodities
  • Three Questions to Save Training Money
  • Stop Database. Start Connectivity.
  • Definitions of Teamwork and Team Spirit
  • Definition of "Team"
  • Does Your Law Department Need Team Spirit?
  • What Is Legal Risk (If Any Such Thing Exists)?
  • Law and Ethics: Study Case "Pollution"
  • Law and Ethics: Study Case "Bribery"
  • Law and Ethics: Seven Questions Every General Counsel Should Have a Clear Opinion About
  • Antoine's Legal Cartoon 21 Dec 09
  • The End of Legal Writing?
  • Definition of Compliance
  • Differentiating Compliance and Governance
  • The Battle of the General Counsel: HQ vs. BU
  • Don't Have Meetings!
  • How Much Empowering Do You Want?
  • Criticisms of Coaching

Categories

  • Client Service
  • Finance
  • General Counsel
  • Governance & Strategy
  • Human Resources
  • Information Technology
  • Knowledge Management
  • Legal Practice
  • Marketing
  • Outsourcing

Archives

  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • January 2009
  • More...

FAVORITES

  • BusinessLawNet
  • David Maister
  • InHouseBlog
  • Legal OnRamp
  • Patrick McKenna
  • The [NON] Billable Hour

RSS

  • Subscribe to this blog's feed

Creative Ways to Define Your Market

Many attorneys define their market by they do, as in "I am doing copyright" or "I am doing real estate". This is the continuation of university, where "law" was divided into "contract law", "commercial law", etc.

Another, client-centered way of defining your market is to define what clients you work for and what needs you meet for them. The two above examples will become "I help high-tech companies protect their intellectual capital" or "I help real estate developers to manage risks."

Some firms find it difficult though to define their market in this client-centered way, because every lawyer is doing something different. Of course, if the firm is a labour law boutique, defining the market is easy because the specific market of each attorney in the firm is the same as the firm's. But when in the same firms, each attorney is working for different clients in different areas to fulfill different needs, it becomes tricky to explain what the firm is about.

Time to be creative. What criterion to use? An example: the type of client relationship that you have. Or the pricing system. That is becoming the core feature of your firm and what links all lawyers together: a certain philosophy, a particular approach to client relationship, etc.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 29, 2010 in Governance & Strategy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Strategy Made Simple

You have a strategy if you can answer the following questions:

  • What clients do you want to have?
  • What needs or desires of your clients do you want to fulfill?
  • What do you offer to fulfill these needs or desires?
  • What positioning do you want to have in your market?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 29, 2010 in Governance & Strategy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Emotional Cost of RFP

The problem when you use requests for proposals is that you necessarily have to say "no" to the all of the respondents except one, and who likes to do that?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 08, 2010 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Why General Counsel Call on Law Firms

Because:

-    They don't have the manpower in-house

-    They don't have the expertise in-house

-    They have the manpower and the expertise, but they want a second opinion.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 08, 2010 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Reporting Lines

Do lawyers in the business units report to the CEO of the business unit, to the head of legal at HQ, or to both of them? This is a critical question for the standing of the legal function in a company, with clear cultural differences: in US companies, in-house counsel tend to report to the general counsel. In French companies, they tend to report to the CEO of their business unit. Some companies try to combine both with a matricial reporting system differentiating between "functional reporting" and "structural reporting. 

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 08, 2010 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Why Don't We Work More for You?

If you want to get more work from a client, try the question: "Why don't we get more work from you?"

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 08, 2010 in Marketing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Looking for a Market Opportunity?

Advice to law firms: I have met two general counsel of major companies this week who are both lacking adequate "legal watch" services. What they want is to be informed about legal developments relevant for their business, both actual and potential (what's in the pipeline). They don't seem to be able to get this from their law firms. 

There are many reasons why law firms are not able or not willing to provide this service:

-    Law firms see legal watch as a non-profitable activity. And indeed, general counsel are not willing to pay fortunes for that service. Tip: if you want to offer that service, think carefully about organization, leverage and efficiency.  

-    Law firms tend to delegate legal watch to junior professionals without experience in the relevant sector. That may result in a very basic type of legal watch, totally useless to the in-house lawyers. What general counsel expect is more than that: insights, analysis, prospective, opinion about what's happening and what's coming up. TIP: get senior attorneys involved to benefit from their insights and analysis.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 08, 2010 in Client Service | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

High End Commodities

We have come to see the legal market as a superposition of three different markets: a market for standard services ("commodities"), a market for expertise, and a market for big, strategic transactions or litigation. We often represent these three markets as a hierarchy: commodities at the bottom, strategic transactions at the top, and expertise in the middle. (This also reflects the differentiation in hourly rates). There may be more to it, actually.  It may be wrong to believe that commodity work is necessarily low-end and at the bottom of the pyramid. There is a market segment for "high end commodities", and you will find a lot of it in banking and finance work.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 08, 2010 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Three Questions to Save Training Money

Do you know precisely what you want to improve?

If your answer is "management" or "communication" or "negotiation", you haven't done your homework yet. What exactly do you want to improve? Exactly what performance needs improvement? What specific behavior do you want to enhance?

Are you convinced that improving it is a priority?

There are so many nice things to learn, but so little time and budget available for learning. It is easy to waste your time while having a good time). But you can have a good time AND make a great use of your training resources. Make sure training will focus on what really matters both for your organization and for the participants. Is there a compelling reason for this training? Is it really important to have it now? Does it efficiently support the strategic objectives of your organization? Is it a "must have", or just a "nice to have"? What do you risk if you don't do the training?

Will better skills lead to better performance?

Sometimes, the reason for poor performance has nothing to do with lacking skills. If I learn to swim, my swimming performance will be zero if I don't have a swimming pool. If I learn creativity, I won't be able to use it and be more creative if my boss is a risk-averse tradition lover who won't leave me any room for innovation. Training is very often a bad solution to a real problem. Don't make that mistake. Make sure the bottleneck is indeed about skills, and not about anything else such as lack of strategic focus, inefficient organization, conflicts among decision-makers, laziness, lack of motivation, etc.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

January 04, 2010 in Human Resources | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Stop Database. Start Connectivity.

Knowledge sharing is like the Loch Ness Monster. Everybody’s talking about it, but who has actually seen it? The sad truth is, it does not work. At least the way most people are trying to do it. The good news is, it can work if you shift your focus from producing and storing content to connecting people.

Databases: the end of an illusion?

Enhancing knowledge management within the law department is on the to do list of nearly all the general counsel, and has been there for ever, but execution is lacking. Let’s face it: it is wishful thinking. There are many possible explanations:

-    People are not producing the standard documents, not updating the templates, or not filing them properly in the database;

-    Documents exist and are properly filed, but quality sucks and nobody wants to use them;

-    The filing system is so complex that none really knows how to use it, so the hell with it;

-    It does not make sense to use a NDA written to meet City standards for a due diligence of a family business in Slovakia;

-    Lawyers only trust documents they have sweat on themselves;

-    Lawyers are reluctant to give up for free and without any kind of recognition the outcome of their work. 

Whatever the reason, despite huge efforts and investments, most of the time the database initiative eventually crashes down or produces lilliputian results compared to the hopes and the investment.

Connectivity is the key

Smile! There is an alternative. Stop thinking about templates, standard documents, state-of-the art opinions, etc. Stop thinking about how to file everything that everyone knows or has ever produced. Stop dreaming about building up the ultimate corporate library where lawyers will be able to find top quality, up-to-date and user-friendly documents and models for everything they need. In other words, stop thinking about content. Think about people instead.

When it comes to knowledge sharing, focus on sharing first, on knowledge after. It is not about building and centralizing content, it's about connecting and empowering people. It is about creating opportunities and platforms where colleagues can meet and interact, discuss, share, ask for help, and provide help. It is about making sure that people know each other and what they do, and have a chance to bring on their concerns, ideas, projects, questions to the community. With Web 2.0, technology is now offering amazing tools to do exactly that. But it is not just about technology. Old style networking works wonders as well!

Thinking about people instead of content, going for connectivity instead of a database, is a frightening move for the general counsel. You loose control over content. You don't control what people are asking to each other, what answers they give, and how they interact together. But did you really have control before? Everyone was using their own documents anyway, because the database never worked. So, are you loosing something else than an illusion or a wish of control?

Knowledge sharing that works is about creating a vibrant community. It is fun, interactive, ever-changing, it works in real time, and it saves everyone the over-boring and painful perspective of producing and updating for the rest of their life an entire library of templates. Who can beat a social network? Not a database, for sure.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 24, 2009 in General Counsel, Knowledge Management | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Definitions of Teamwork and Team Spirit

Teamwork is an action. Team spirit is a mindset that enhances teamwork. 

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 23, 2009 in Human Resources | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Definition of "Team"

A team is:

-     a group of people

-    working together 

-    in a relationship of interdependence

-    to achieve a common goal

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 23, 2009 in Human Resources | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Does Your Law Department Need Team Spirit?

The purpose of this article is to help general counsel make the right analysis and the right decisions on matters relating to teamwork and team spirit in the law department.

In short, it is always right to pursue external teamwork, but often a waste of time to pursue internal teamwork. General counsel should find out exactly what their department need, and that is often something else than internal teamwork: effective management, organization and process; networking; or simply more fun, togetherness and recognition.

Internal and external teamwork

It seems common sense that team spirit is a good thing and a goal worth pursuing, doesn't it?

In many situations, working as a team is indeed a necessity. The job simply can't be done without people working together. Examples? Football: there is no winning unless the team wins. Another example? Web applications. Forget it unless the designer and the programmer are really working together. No teamwork, no performance. In these situations, there is an objective and fundamental need for teamwork, and promoting team spirit becomes a strategic priority because it fuels teamwork.

But do law departments fit into that picture? Is teamwork of the essence of legal work? Is it intrinsically linked to high performance in legal matters? To answer this, you need to distinguish external and internal teamwork. External teamwork happens between an in-house lawyer and people outside the law department (CEO, business managers, finance professionals, HR manager, outside counsel...). Internal teamwork happens among the members of the law department themselves.

My opinion is that there is obvious added value in external teamwork, but the value of internal teamwork is more questionable.

External teamwork is always essential

There is no question that the company will be better off if the lawyer assigned to a particular matter or project works hand in hand with colleagues from other departments working on that matter or project. Most  in-house lawyers are already convinced of that and eager to cooperate (there are still some in-house lawyers suffering from the locked-in syndrome, but it is a species on its way to extinction). The challenge is rather to convince the colleagues outside the legal department to involve the lawyers. Developing a strategy to develop external teamwork, in particular by giving non-lawyers good reasons to involve lawyers in their work, should always remain a top item of the general counsel priority list and a closely watched indicator.

Internal teamwork: what’s the point?

But pursuing the goal of internal teamwork is more problematic. I see many general counsel eager to reinforce internal team spirit, but unable to spell out the common, fundamental objective that requires team work. They think they need team spirit and teamwork, but what for?

How much operational integration do the members of the law department really need to perform well? Maybe each lawyer is working with different clients, or on different practice areas, and the whole idea of a "team" does not really make sense, because the individuals are not interdependent to achieve their goals (they can do it all by themselves) and because there is not a single shared goal, but a multitude of different matters and projects that different lawyers are tackling on their own.

The eagerness to enhance team spirit is going nowhere if there is no objective necessity for teamwork. Will the company be better off if in-house lawyers are working as a team among themselves? Not sure. Should team spirit be branded as a value as such in the law department? Only if you come up with a good reason for it.

Actually, I see many fine law departments where the lawyers don't work as a team: each lawyer is working on her own files with her own clients, under the supervision of a senior lawyer as the case may be, but with limited interaction with other lawyers. They may not have a lot of internal teamwork, but the job is done and well done, the clients are happy, and the lawyers as well. And that does not prevent them from having good relationships with their colleagues in the law department. So, no internal teamwork, but so what? Who cares? Where is the problem?

I am not saying that internal teamwork is always an irrelevant concept for law departments; what I say is that it is a mistake to take if for granted that teamwork and team spirit are necessary and good for the legal department.

My recommendation to general counsel who wants to “do team spirit” is therefore to step back and answer the following questions: 

-         Why exactly do I wish more team work and more team spirit in the department? The answer must be very practical and down-to-earth. Don’t take “vision”, “mission” or “values” for a satisfying answer.

-         What dead-serious damage is threatening us if we don’t work as a team? Here again, accept only very practical and tangible answers.

-         What obvious and tangible benefits would we or the company get from more teamwork within the law department? Is teamwork the best way to get these benefits?

It is dangerous for the general counsel to launch a teamwork initiative if there is no compelling reason for it, because that teamwork initiative will most probably not work, and that will hurt the credibility of the general counsel. All the team spirit in the world will flow in the work to be done does not require or seriously benefit from teamwork. Team spirit for the sake of team spirit is a lost cause.

But then, why do so many law department nevertheless spend time on team building seminars? If not internal teamwork, what is it that they really need?

Find out what you really need

You might very well come to the conclusion that:

-         Your department really needs teamwork and team spirit. The lawyers of the department have to work together to get things done, because projects are complex and require a multi-disciplinary approach, or for whatever other reason that is making the lawyers fundamentally interdependent to get their work done.

-         You don't need internal teamwork at all. Each lawyer works on different matters, and it does not make sense to want them to work together. They'd better focus on external teamwork. That’s not a bad news for the management of the law department. Actually, you can ensure a high and consistent level of performance across the law department without teamwork. Effective supervision, well-designed processes, training programs, strict recruitment standards, performance management are different means available to the general counsel and don't have much to do with team spirit and teamwork. In other words, you don't need team spirit to make the law department perform. 

-         You need internal teamwork, but only for specific, limited tasks. You may for example be creating a working group within the law department, and teamwork is necessary within that working group until it has reached its purpose. I would call it "circumstantial teamwork", as opposed to "structural teamwork" where teamwork is of the essence of what the law department is doing. The point is, you don’t need to make too much of a fuss about it. Be pragmatic. If you set up a working group, check out whether it works and give the right impulsions if necessary, but don’t embark your department in the full “team spirit journey”, it would be a counter-productive waste of time and credibility.

-         You don't need internal teamwork, but more connectivity among the members of the law department would cheer up everyone and empower them to better do their job. It helps to know one’s colleagues, to know who is doing what, to know where to find what sort of information, etc. Basically, what you want is not a team, but a club: a cool place that people are happy and pride to belong to, where they make and develop effective contacts, share information as they wish, etc.

-         Maybe the members of the law department feel isolated. Their expressed need for more teamwork actually translates a need for more “togetherness”. They want more social interactions, more fun, and the feeling of belonging to something big and inspiring such as a “team”, etc. “Team spirit” in that case is not linked to objective performance, but to psychology and motivation. There is no real need for teamwork, but there is a real and shared desire for more fun, more social interactions, and a more rewarding self-image. I am not suggesting that these needs should be ignored. On the contrary. But the desire for more togetherness, however legitimate it may be, is not the same as the objective need for teamwork.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

 

December 23, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

What Is Legal Risk (If Any Such Thing Exists)?

A new law or regulation with a negative impact on the business?

Lack of awareness of the business about existing laws and regulations ?

A failure by the business to comply with existing laws and regulations?

Getting investigated or caught by the authorities?

The penalties imposed on the company for breach of the law?

The signature of an agreement ?

A failure to comply with contractual obligations ?

The consequences of failing to comply with contractual obligations ?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 23, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Law and Ethics: Study Case "Pollution"

The affiliate in a developing country is asking you whether they can dump toxic substances in the river. You investigate local law and discover that there is a legal vacuum. Technically, the affiliate could not be prosecuted for dumping the toxic substances. There are no internal policies on pollution in the company. What do you answer?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 23, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Law and Ethics: Study Case "Bribery"

Your company is operating in overseas markets where bribing officials is part of the game. Basically, you can't get a project done in that country without bribing officials. If you don't bribe, you are out of the markets. Your competitors are doing it, directly or through third parties ("local investors"). Bribery is a criminal offense in that country, although mostly ignored. It is against the official policies of your company, and may be criminally prosecuted in the country of establishment of your company, although rather mildly. Business managers eager to get a deal are pushing you very hard to help them setting up a scheme with third party-investors, consulting services agreements, and other similar devices to "get the job done". It is indeed possible to make some legal window-dressing, but basically it is all about bribing officials.

How do you feel about the situation?

What do you do?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 23, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Law and Ethics: Seven Questions Every General Counsel Should Have a Clear Opinion About

What if it is legal but not ethical?

What if it is not legal but ethical?

What if it is not legal or not ethical but nevertheless in line with the best interest of the business?

Is it about preventing the breach of the law as such or preventing the damaging consequences of breaching the law (penalties, jail, tarnished reputation, etc.)?

How do you know whether it's ethical or not ethical?

Who should decide whether it is ethical or not ethical?

Is it better to define ethical rules in writing or to keep ethics as a broad, undefined concept?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 23, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Antoine's Legal Cartoon 21 Dec 09

Political games and power struggles do exist in law firms... What's the real power of the managing partner ?Just click here to see latest Antoine's cartoon on legal management.

December 21, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The End of Legal Writing?

Is writing legal memo an art threatened by extinction? In the age of email, SMS, podcasts, videoconferencing and Web 2.0, doesn't the traditional legal memo look like an outdated, outpaced channel of communication? And who in the corporate world has the time and the stability of mind to concentrate on more than a few lines anyway? Aren't most in-house counsel preferring a phone call from their attorney rather than a written memo?

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 16, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Definition of Compliance

Compliance is the state of being in accordance with established legislation, regulation, policies, guidelines, or specifications.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 16, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Differentiating Compliance and Governance

Compliance is becoming a hot subject within many law departments, but the practical meaning of this concept remains a very open question. To help define the scope of compliance, it is useful to compare it to governance. Governance is about setting the rules. Compliance is about ensuring that the rules are being followed.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 16, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Battle of the General Counsel: HQ vs. BU

In large groups with several business units (BU), the relationship between the Group General Counsel and the General Counsel of the different BU is often a delicate one. Basically, the BU General Counsel are very happy on their own. They don't need - or at least don't perceive the need - of an extra layer of management and oversight above them. They are often very experienced lawyers, with a deep knowledge of the BU and good ties with the BU managers, and they are the undisputed boss of the BU legal team. They don't need a Group General Counsel above them. 

The situation is different for the Group General Counsel. The headquarters are the natural territory of the Group General Counsel. But that's only a small part of the legal affairs of the group. So, the Group General Counsel is facing a choice: either to limit himself (no male chauvinistic bias here, but for the sake of readability I will use "he" and "him" and "she" and "her" in my next blog on the same subject) to HQ matters, or trying to expand his reach into BU legal affairs.

A Group General Counsel limiting his attention to HQ matters may soon be out of touch with what goes on in the business, and that can make him gradually irrelevant. To avoid that uncomfortable situation, the Group General Counsel may then decide to expand his authority and oversight to BU legal matters and to the management of the legal departments in the BU. The soft version of this is reporting: the Group General Counsel will request the BU General Counsel to report on important legal risks, on headcount, on budgets,etc. But the Group General Counsel may also try to have a deeper grip into the BU legal affairs. That puts him in a potential conflict with the BU General Counsel. The latter may feel that their authority on their own legal department is being by-passed and undermined by the Group General Counsel. Explicit opposition is dangerous, but in practice the BU General Counsel have many ways to contain and undermine the initiatives of the Group General Counsel (saying "yes" and looking busy, but basically doing nothing or reacting slowly).

In this conflict of authority, the Group General Counsel, although formally in a position of authority, is not necessarily in a favorable position. The BU General Counsel have the formidable advantage of being close to where the real business happens and to have direct access to information. 

So, what are the options of the Group General Counsel? I see three: backing off into HQ; fighting to make his dominance over BU General Counsel prevail; and  entering into a collaborative relationship with the BU General Counsel. The latter two options can be combined.

Backing off into HQ is a failure. It transforms the Group General Counsel into a "courtisan" in a grey suit. Although none dares to ask, none knows precisely what the guy is doing and what is his contribution to the bottom line. 

Fighting to establish dominance is another option. The best way to do this is simply for the Group General Counsel to appoint his own lieutenants as BU General Counsel. If that is not possible, removing a few incumbents may be sufficient. The one with the power to appoint and remove BU General Counsel will be perceived and respected as the real boss. Sometimes it does not require to spill blood to establish dominance: the attributes of natural leadership are clarity of vision and purpose, decisiveness, intelligence, the courage to make choices and take responsibility for them, and cristal-clear communication.

The third option is collaboration. (It can easily come in combination with option 2). The key is to find out in what areas the Group General Counsel and the HQ legal department can be useful to the BU legal departments. The Group General Counsel can then unleash his energy in developing programs that have the genuine buy-in of the BU General Counsel because these programs are useful for the BU General Counsel. They help the BU General Counsel achieve their own objectives. An important question is "What can we do at Group level that cannot be done (as effectively) as BU level?". A few examples: organising lawyers' mobility across business units, setting up a "Legal Corporate University", benchmarking law firms' fees, sharing best practices. In practice, it helps to brainstorm with the Group General Counsel and the BU General Counsel to find out together the areas where coordination and synergies are necessary and desirable. The job of the Group General Counsel is then to make those things happen (brainstorming is not enough...).

At that point, the frustration for the Group General Counsel may be to discover that there is not much that truly needs or that would benefit from centralisation and coordination. Legal work is not like playing football, where playing as a team is intrinsic to the sport. Some Group General Counsel are very keen to seeing all lawyers working as a team (sharing information, setting up shared templates, forming working groups, speaking the same language, etc.), but that may be serving their need to justify their own existence (a team needs a coach, and if there is no team, why should there be a coach?) more than the objective needs of the business (on what matters and to what extent is cooperation among lawyers making their work more productive?). 

This is the real test to which any initiative by the Group General Counsel to extend his authority over BU General Counsel or his involvement in the management of the BU legal affairs should be submitted: are we just in a power game to achieve dominance for the sake of dominance, or does it make a positive difference for the shareholders? 

Antoine Henry de Frahan

December 16, 2009 in General Counsel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Don't Have Meetings!

One of my favourite pages ever on meetings. I love it! The meeting is so simple: meetings are toxic. Don't have meetings. Period. Check it out! 

Antoine Henry de Frahan 

December 07, 2009 in Client Service | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

How Much Empowering Do You Want?

When a law firm is ordering a training program for associates, an important question to agree is the level of "associates empowerment" that the law firm is expecting from associates. 

A training program can be designed so as to lead associates to comply with and operate within the existing organisation and processes, without questioning them. But it can also give associates a chance to think critically and creatively about the firm's organisation and processes. When, during a workshop, a question as basic as "How could we improve the effectiveness of our practice group meetings?" is asked to associates, it actually invites them to think critically and creatively about the system. It implies that the system can be perfected. It implies that partners' job in managing the firm is not perfect. It implies that associates are authorised to take a critical distance with the system instead of adhering to it without any questions. It implies that partners should take suggestions into account and act upon them. Are partners fully aware of all these implications? Is this what they want to get, or do they want a training that will actually reduce the critical (and creative) distance that associates might have?

When facing all these implications, some partners will think twice before buying an "empowering training experience" for associates. And maybe rightly so. In other firms, partners are more willing to enable associates to think creatively and critically about the system. And maybe rightly so. What is important, in my opinion, is for the firm to make a conscious decision about the desired level of empowerment that the training is expected to produce.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

November 23, 2009 in Human Resources | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Criticisms of Coaching

There are many criticisms of "coaching", at least among French books and blogs. Authors like Vincent de Gaulejac (Qui est "je"?, La société malade de la gestion, Le coût de l'excellence), Roland Gori and Pierre Le Coz (L'empire des coachs), Michela Marzano (Extension du domaine de la manipulation)  or Geneviève Guilhaume (L'ère du coaching) are leading the way. In the blogoshpere, Professor F. Mispelblom Beyer gives an interesting overview of these criticisms. In a short essay, Stéphane Haefliger summarises two important criticisms: the invasion of privacy, and the ignorance of the systemic dimension of performance.

I am not easily finding the equivalent in US litterature and blogosphere. It may be that I am not looking at the right place, or that coaching is more entrenched into US culture.

Antoine Henry de Frahan

November 15, 2009 in Human Resources | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Next »

ABOUT US

  • Visit our website
  • Send us an e-mail
  • Barend presents at Kluwer Legalworld Congres 09
  • Barend presents at IBA annual conference in Madrid - 5 October 09

SUBSCRIBE

  • Add your email address to receive our free Blogletter

RECENT ARTICLES

  • Associations d'avocats : le choix de la réussite
  • Legal Departments and Law Firms: a Widening Gap?
  • Dis Papa, c'est encore loin le partnership?
  • Zeg Papa, is het nog ver naar het partnerschap?
  • Lawyers in Business Meetings
  • What Is Your Firm Worth?
  • Compliance : quels contours pour une nouvelle fonction stratégique ?
  • Avoiding the Side-Effects of Lockstep
  • Predicting Cross Selling Performance
  • Associations d'avocats : le choix de la réussite
  • Managing Partners: This Is Your Moment!
  • Law Firm Political Systems
  • How to Get More Value for Money from Outside Counsel
  • A Law Firm Is a Jazz Band
  • The Backbone of a Law Firm
  • European Law Firms Will Become What They Measure
  • Towards 2018: Unlocking the Missing Link in Law Firm Management
  • Leiderschap of lijderschap in associaties
  • Independence is not a Strategy
  • Homo Legalus et le Legal Risk Management

ALL ARTICLES

  • Click here for our archives