Archive for year: 2009

Leaders are often depicted as resolute, visionary, motivational, intent on reminding followers to get with the program or get off the team.  And we’ve all heard that it’s lonely at the top.  No question that leaders may be called on to make difficult decisions and to demand compliance with those decisions.  To fail to do so would, at times, be an unforgiveable dereliction of duty.

Servant-leadership, which may incorporate similar traits and approaches, operates from the perspective of leading for the best interest of the people or organization being led.  Robert Greenleaf coined the term in a 1970 essay that drew a picture of a different kind of leader:

The servant-leader is servant first…  It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.  Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.  That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…  The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types.  Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

The different manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.  The best test, and difficult to administer, is:  Do those served grow as persons?  Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?  And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society?  Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?

M. Scott Peck wrote, “Servant Leadership is more than a concept.  As far as I am concerned, it is a fact.  I would simply define it by saying that any great leader, by which I also mean an ethical leader of any group, will see herself or himself primarily as a servant of that group and will act accordingly.”

Consider what it might mean for a lawyer to consider him- or herself a servant of the group he or she is leading.  It’s a natural model for client relationships, since an attorney is ethically bound to serve a client’s interest (within appropriate boundaries) and to conduct an engagement not by asking what’s best for the lawyer or the firm, but what’s best for the client.

What about the law firms?  Imagine law firm leadership determined to serve the firm.  Partners might be more inclined to mentor more junior lawyers, to grow them not only in substantive lawyering skills but also as ethical, civil professionals, viewing the activity as an investment in the firm’s future.  Rather than cutting associates when the economy dips as a way to protect the firm’s income (and the much-reported profits per partner), firm leaders might elect to put the economic burden on those who might best afford it — the partners, particularly those who earn jumbo partnership draws.  The culture would likely value “we” over “me.”

Before you conclude that such an approach would be too “soft” to survive, consider the leadership that would be required to enforce the policies.  I suspect that any leader would require a backbone of steel to invite a major rainmaker to leave the firm rather than to allow the rainmaker to put his or her own interests ahead of that of the firm as a whole.  Difficult decisions remain to be made and implemented.  Servant-leadership is not by any means weak leadership.

How might a firm run under a servant-leadership approach differ from one run with a “me first” mentality?  What do you suppose would happen to associate attrition?  How do you imagine associates who did choose to leave such a firm would regard the firm?  Would the firm be more or less stable?  Would clients notice a difference?  What’s the downside?

For reflection:  how would you change your leadership (of self or of others) if your focus were on serving those you lead?

A Sense of Urgency
by John P. Kotter

John Kotter, a noted expert on leadership and change management, fervently believes that attachment to the status quo is a silent but deadly killer.  Through numerous examples, Kotter demonstrates that organization stall and atrophy as change fails.  Kotter’s bottom line?  If it ain’t broke, break it.

A Sense of Urgency draws on an earlier Kotter book titled Leading Change, in which he proposed instilling a sense of urgency as the first step of an eight-step process to implement successful transformation.  However, he found that increasing urgency is the most difficult and the least developed of the steps, thus prompting him to write A Sense of Urgency.

Kotter notes that change is continuous in nature.  Rather than a single enormous change, such as an acquisition, continuous change exists in the form of (for example) new strategies and new projects.  Organizations must adopt a proactive approach to these continuous changes, which require creation of an appropriate sense of real urgency.  Kotter maintains that carrying out proactive change requires organizations both to diagnose and overcome complacency (which he defines as “a feeling that a person has about his or her behavior, about what needs to be done or not done”) and to avoid false urgency, which creates a flurry of activity that distracts participants from legitimate activity that will produce meaningful change.  Kotter proposes several methods to do just that.

One of the most effective methods that Kotter recommends is to seek out opportunities and hazards coming from outside the organization, perhaps from clients, competitors, or the marketplace at large.  This awareness encourages innovation and discourages complacency:  “When you don’t see opportunities or hazards, your sense of urgency drops.  With less urgency, you are even less inclined to look outside for the new possibilities and problems.  Complacency grows.”  Kotter offers a laundry list of approaches to develop this outside awareness, including listening to those who have the most interaction with the customer; using the power of video to bring important issues alive; sharing news — good and bad — with all members of the organization; sending people out as scouts to gather intelligence; and bringing key customers, prospects, new hires and information into the organization.

In addition, organizations should develop “urgent patience,” in which workers reject frenetic busywork in favor of working toward goals with purpose and intention, to avoid the danger of false urgency.  By remaining focused on key goals rather than merely generating activity, energy and attention are reserved for formulating actions that will produce desired movement.

One particularly interesting aspect of Kotter’s work is the marriage of logical, analytical, business-centered goals with an emotional connection to those goals.  Bringing emotion to a solid business decision creates engagement, promotes workers to set and achieve higher goals, and prompts them to challenge the status quo and their ordinary comfort zones.  The result?  Meaningful change.

What’s in it for lawyers?  There’s no question that the legal profession has undergone a complete sea change over the last year to 18 months.  The legal industry has been shaken up, and some lawyers are seizing the opportunities that are emerging.  Others, however, seem to be hunkered down, waiting for the storm to pass.  In my opinion, even when the storm itself has ended, we’re going to be left with a new world — there’s no going “home” anymore, Toto — which makes this a dangerous response.

Kotter’s theses speak to why those who are proactively seeking opportunities will be more successful than those who are just responding to crisis.  Effective change agents, he writes, “take carefully considered action to convert intial anxiety and anger into a determination to act now and win.”  Crises force re-evaluation and improvement, and in the absence of an externally-imposed crisis (a “burning platform”), Kotter urges organizations to torch their own platforms to stay abreast of change.

What has your (or your firm’s) response been to the downturn?  If it has been reactive rather than proactive, I’d urge you to pick up A Sense or Urgency.  For most lawyers, the platform is in flames, and — to invoke the overused and somewhat misleading device — the crisis brings both danger and opportunity.  If you’re having trouble finding the opportunity, Kotter’s book provides substantial direction.  While complacency is unlikely to be the risk these days, false urgency (“We’ve got to reduce expenses!  Slash the business development budget, now!”) is running rampant in some circles.  Kotter can help.

Lawyers who are or aspire to be leaders must learn to self-manage.  Especially when stressed or under pressure (and who isn’t, at least part of the time?).  It’s easy to let self-management slide in the face of provocation.  Some attorneys I know offer a blanket apology to staff and colleagues — something like, “I’m feeling stressed, so please excuse me if I blow up or yell at you or throw things, ok?””  I don’t recommend that approach; it’s better than nothing, I suppose, but it’s actually announcing that bad behavior is coming, apparently largely unchecked.

Let’s be real:  attorneys are often faced with statements, actions, arguments, behavior, etc. that is galling in the extreme.  It’s a common practice among some litigators to find their opponents’ hot buttons; push the button and out pops an ugly intemperate person — not someone a jury would respect or believe.  (Same goes for witnesses, too, and in non-litigation contexts.)  So how can you handle it when faced with provocation that would make the Buddha quiver with rage?

1. Keep your attention on the motivation behind the provocation.  Is the person who’s enraging you doing it intentionally, or is it a by-product of words or behavior that he likely thinks perfectly appropriate?  If it’s the former, don’t give him the satisfaction of knowing he succeeded.  If it’s the latter, consider whether displaying annoyance would stop the behavior or simply let your opponent know that he’s found a soft spot.
2. Breathe.  This is great advice for just about any situation, but it’s especially good for dealing with anger.  You can react, which implies knee-jerk emotional feedback made without any reflection, or you can respond, which implies feedback that follows a pause and analysis/reflection to determine the best way to address the provocation.  It’s far better to respond than to react.  There’s no reason why you can’t fall silent for a few seconds (which may feel interminable to you and your opponent) while you work through your options.
3. Speak softly.  Most of us tend to raise our voices when we speak in anger.  Therefore, it’s disarming to do the opposite and to speak more quietly.  The effect is to appear reasonable and controlled (especially helpful if your opponent is ranting and raving and seemingly out of control) and to force your opponent to listen carefully to hear what you have to say.  I’ve been told that in Japanese culture, when two parties are arguing, the one who raises her voice first loses.  It’s a difficult tactic for many of us to master, but if you can speak softly in the face of provocation, you will stand a much better chance of controlling your anger.
4. Vent.  Express your anger in some forum that poses no risk of exposing it.  Writing can be helpful, but especially if you write an angry response to an email, be sure that you don’t accidentally send it!
5. Exercise.  That’s physical venting.  When feasible, get up and take a walk instead of marinating in a situation that makes you angry.
6. Selective release of anger.  Sometimes, it’s absolutely appropriate to express your anger at the person whose behavior has caused it.  But consider the consequences of such an expression.  Will you disrupt the relationship?  Do you stand to lose ground?  Will your expressed anger cause the person to react in a way that will cause you even more trouble?  And when you do choose to display anger, consider doing so through your words only but continuing to speak in a low, even tone of voice.  That will reinforce the gravity of your words.

And, despite our best efforts at these tactics, all of us lose our tempers sometimes.  Especially in time of frustration and stress, it’s easy to let it slip, despite best efforts.  When that happens, don’t be afraid to apologize and admit to being human.

High Altitude Leadership:  What the World’s Most Forbidding Peaks Teach Us About Success (J-B US non-Franchise Leadership)
by Chris Warner and Don Schmingke
Hardcover

High Altitude Leadership, published late last year, seems to have hit the market at precisely the right moment.  Drawing on observations made during mountaineering expeditions (including Mount Everest ascents, the authors identify eight dangers that climbers and business leaders face.  Although the observations are phrased in business terms, they’re certainly applicable to legal practice as well.

1. Fear of Death.  You might understand immediately why a mountain climber would fear death and how that fear could create paralysis and, ultimately, cause exactly the feared result.  In business (and in the practice of law), fear stops action.  To avoid falling victim to this danger, accept the prospect of failure and act anyway.
   I envision this as the action that allowed some large law firms to avoid the worst of the recent recession by seeing the problems early and moving to mitigate those circumstances rather than becoming paralyzed by the fear of what might happen.
2. Selfishness.  The authors analogize business selfishness to the precarious situation created when a climber eager to make an ascent ignores warning of danger and by doing so threatens the safety of an entire team.  In business terms, the authors explain that selfishness produces DUD behavior:  Dangerous, Unproductive, and Dysfunctional.  The solution?  Crafting a compelling saga that speaks to purpose and mission and creates the passion that will overcome selfishness.
3. Tool Seduction.  Tools — whether ropes and oxygen to assist in mountain climbing or leadship and business development systems — are important.  Overreliance on tools, however, produces people without the foundational skills necessary to survive.  When I was a child, my parents made sure I could tell time with an analog watch before permitting me to wear a digital watch.  The principle here is similar, as is the solution:  learn the underlying skill and how to use the tools wisely.
4. Arrogance.  Although more than 13,000 people have attempted Mount Everest, 73% failed to reach the summit and 208 died in the process.  Warner and Schmincke claim that arrogance always lurks behind failure, showing up in poor planning, poor execution, or the belief that ordinary rules are inapplicable.  Humility tempers the ego and avoids failure.  Where have your observed arrogance vs. humility in the legal field over the last couple of years?
5. Lone Heroism.  Those who refuse needed help, who really believe that “if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself,” are suffering from lone heroism.  Warner recounts the story of a climber who desperately wants to make an ascent the purist way, without oxygen, even though his body was shutting down.  In business, lone heroes refuse good advice and hamstring talented team members.  Developing partnership and allowing partners to take the lead when appropriate avoids lone hero syndrome.  (As a sidenote, lone herosim — which I call “lone ranger syndrome” — slows the progress of would-be rainmakers who refuse help and guidance.)
6. Cowardice.  Just as fear of failure/death stops forward motion, cowardice keeps climbers and business leaders stuck in place.  They may unenthusiastically continue work on a project knowing it’s doomed, or they may fail to uncover a weak or arrogant member of the team because someone might criticize them.  The solution, of course, is developing a sense of bravery, which is encouraged by an atmosphere in which everyone is expected to speak the truth and to admit to problems as step one toward correcting them.
7. Comfort.  The best climbers and the best leaders are comfortable being uncomfortable.  Sure, it’s easier to climb a mountain or to lead in rosy times.  But strong leaders know how to persevere even in unfavorable circumstances — and they know that sometimes perseverance means stepping back when changed circumstances make a strategy infeasible.  Choosing to step into a calculated risk may be uncomfortable, but it’s also how progress gets made.
8. Gravity.  Even carefully laid plans sometimes fail due to erroneous assumptions, brand new obstacles, or others’ failure to adhere to commitments.  Bringing skill to climbing and to business will avoid many problems, but challenges are sometimes unavoidable.  High altitude leaders recognize the role of luck:  sometimes you can do everything right and fail anyway.  Just ask those who have suffered through the law firm layoffs of 2008-2009.

The analogy of mountain climbing is surprisingly applicable to business, as the authors note:

On big peaks, we tell clients that the first mistake they made was joining the expedition.  They are now in an environment where things can go terribly wrong very quickly.  If they are going to make it home alive, they have to be more disciplined, more giving and more humbled than ever before.  Everyone has to scan the horizon.  Everyone has to examine themselves and each other for signs of weakness.  Everyone is responsible for their own safety and the safety of everyone else.  They have to prevent the small mistakes from adding up to a catastrophe.

High Altitude Leadership is a compelling book with a strong business message.  We’ve all seen the pull that business places on the practice of law in recent months, and High Altitude Leadership will be helpful for lawyers who are seeing the business side of practice in a new light.